v. Limith, CASE NO. 1D13-5357

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Decision Date: 09 June 2014
• Parties: F.T.M.I. OPERATOR, LLC, and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO., Petitioners, v. ANNE MARIE LIMITH, Respondent.
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 1D13-5357

F.T.M.I. OPERATOR, LLC, and
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO., Petitioners,
v.
ANNE MARIE LIMITH, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D13-5357

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

Opinion filed June 9, 2014

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Petition for Writ of Certiorari - Original Jurisdiction.

Date of Accident: June 26, 2011.

William H. Rogner and Andrew R. Borah of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox, Waranch & Westcott, P.A., Winter Park, for Petitioners.

Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Employer/Carrier (E/C) in this workers' compensation case filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a non-final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying its motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution under section 440.25(4)(i), Florida Statutes (2011). The motion followed the E/C's unsuccessful motion to

Page 2

compel Claimant to file a verified motion for attorney's fees under Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.124(4) and was filed one day after the statute of limitations would have run in this matter but for the JCC's reservation of jurisdiction over a claim for attorney's fees asserted in a petition for benefits (PFB) that was otherwise resolved in January 2012.

The E/C argues that it is irreparably harmed because the denial of its motion to dismiss the pending claim for attorney's fees and costs has "forever stripped" its right to assert the statute of limitations. See Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So. 3d 973 (Fla 1st DCA 2013) (reaffirming rule set forth in Longley v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), that pending claims asserted via PFB for attorney's fees and costs toll statute of limitations). The E/C, however, failed to present any compelling authority indicating it cannot raise and maintain a statute of limitations defense for all benefits that Claimant might later claim (including the at-issue claim for attorney's fees) based on its position that the JCC erred in denying the motion to dismiss. In fact, precedent from this court would indicate otherwise. ^* See

Page 3

Orange...