Sanchez v. Am. Airlines, No. 1D14–4907.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 169 So.3d 1197 |
| Parties | Ricardo SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and Sedgwick CMS, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 1D14–4907. |
| Decision Date | 14 July 2015 |
169 So.3d 1197
Ricardo SANCHEZ, Appellant
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES and Sedgwick CMS, Appellees.
No. 1D14–4907.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 14, 2015.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 4, 2015.
Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC, Coral Gables, for Appellant.
Clinton C. Lyons, Jr., and Frank Garcia of Moran, Kidd, Lyons, Johnson, P.A., Miami Lakes, for Appellees.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation case, Claimant argues that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in finding that his April 2014 petition for benefits (PFB) was barred by the statute of limitations in section 440.19, Florida Statutes (2011). Finding no error in the JCC's application of the law to the facts, we affirm.
Subsection (1) of section 440. 19 provides generally that a PFB must be filed within two years after the date of injury or it will be barred, and subsection (2) provides that the only events that will extend the statute of limitations are the payment of indemnity benefits or the furnishing of medical treatment. Here, the April 2014 PFB was filed more than two years after Claimant's date of injury and more than one year after the last provision of medical or disability benefits, but it was filed within one year after the JCC dismissed a prior PFB and ordered the employer/carrier to pay attorney's fees to Claimant's counsel. Consequently, the narrow question presented in this case is whether the payment of attorney's fees to Claimant's counsel—with no other medical or disability benefits being paid simultaneously to Claimant and no PFBs pending—is sufficient to extend the statute of limitations under subsection 440. 19(2). For the reasons that follow, we answer this question in the negative.
Claimant's previously filed PFB has no bearing on whether the statute of limitations has run because “when an action is dismissed, the statute of limitations is not tolled during the period that the dismissed action was pending; rather, the statute will run as if the dismissed action had never been filed.” McBride v. Pratt & Whitney, 909 So.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moise v. Disney Pop Century Resort, No. 1D17–1759
...dismissed action was pending; rather, the statute will run as if the dismissed action had never been filed.’ " Sanchez v. Am. Airlines , 169 So.3d 1197, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting McBride , 909 So.2d at 388 ). Otherwise, "a party could avoid dismissal in every case by acting after th......
-
Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton, 1D20-2961
...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 ......
-
Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton, 1D20-2961
...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 fe......
-
Law Offices of William F. Souza v. Truly Nolen, Inc., No. 1D16–118.
...without reservation of jurisdiction over an unresolved claim will not toll the statute of limitations (SOL). Sanchez v. Am. Airlines, 169 So.3d 1197, 1197–98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that previously filed and dismissed PFB had no bearing on the running of the SOL, because “ ‘when an act......
-
Moise v. Disney Pop Century Resort, No. 1D17–1759
...action was pending; rather, the statute will run as if the dismissed action had never been filed.’ " Sanchez v. Am. Airlines , 169 So.3d 1197, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting McBride , 909 So.2d at 388 ). Otherwise, "a party could avoid dismissal in every case by acting after th......
-
Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton, 1D20-2961
...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......
-
Hosps. E., LLC v. Hampton, 1D20-2961
...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......
-
Law Offices of William F. Souza v. Truly Nolen, Inc., No. 1D16–118.
...without reservation of jurisdiction over an unresolved claim will not toll the statute of limitations (SOL). Sanchez v. Am. Airlines, 169 So.3d 1197, 1197–98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that previously filed and dismissed PFB had no bearing on the running of the SOL, because “ ‘when an act......