Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 10 November 2021
• Docket Number: 1D20-2961
• Parties: HOSPITALS EAST, LLC d/b/a KINDRED HOSPITAL-NORTH FLORIDA/SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Appellants, v. GLORIA HAMPTON, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

HOSPITALS EAST, LLC d/b/a KINDRED HOSPITAL-NORTH FLORIDA/SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Appellants, v. GLORIA HAMPTON, Appellee.

No. 1D20-2961

Florida Court of Appeals, First District

November 10, 2021

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

Date of Accident: September 5, 2011.

On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Ralph J. Humphries, Judge.

Robert D. Pope and Ryan L. Davis of McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope Weaver &Stern, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants.

Jonathan B. Israel of Rudolph, Israel, Tucker and Ellis P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) rejecting their statute of limitations defense. We reverse.

As background, Claimant sustained a compensable injury in 2011 and in 2013 filed a petition for benefits (PFB) seeking disability benefits and associated penalties, interest costs, and attorney's fees. The JCC entered an order in 2015 awarding the claimed benefits, including fee and cost entitlement, but reserving jurisdiction "to determine the amount thereof [attorney's fees and costs] if the parties are unable to amicably resolve this issue." That order was affirmed per curiam. Kindred Hospital-North Florida/Sedgwick CMS v. Hampton, 156 So.3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). In 2020, Claimant filed the instant PFB (seeking, inter alia, medical benefits). The E/C averred that no benefits had been provided since 2016, and argued that the statute of limitations barred the claims. See § 440.19, Fla. Stat. (2011).

But Claimant contended, and the JCC agreed, that the 2015 order's reservation of jurisdiction over the amount of fees and costs-together with absence of any evidence that the amount had been resolved-tolled the statute of limitations. Both relied on the authority of Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So.3d 973, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[T]he same rule [as in Longley v. Miami-Dade County School Board, 82 So.3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)] applies: pending claims asserted via PFB-even claims for fees and costs- toll the statute of limitations.").

On de novo review, we agree with the E/C that reservation over amount of fees and costs does not toll the statute of limitations, because amount and entitlement are distinct for fees and costs. See Sanchez v. Am. Airlines, 169 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that payment of attorney's fee does not extend statute of limitations because "the payment of an attorney's fee is neither a payment of compensation nor the furnishing of medical treatment-the only two events that will extend the statute of limitations under subsection 440.19(2)"). This principle undergirds many aspects of statute of limitations law in workers' compensation. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R 60Q-6.124(3)(c), (5) (indicating that, where both fee entitlement and amount are contested, hearing can be bifurcated on request, and...