[ad_1]
A Florida appeals court has revived a delivery driver’s workers compensation claim, finding that his petition for additional medical treatment was filed within the applicable statute of limitations under state law.
In a decision issued Wednesday, the First District Court of Appeal set aside an amended final compensation order that had dismissed Brian Leighton’s petition for benefits against Kratos Logistics and Ascendant Claims Services as untimely.
Mr. Leighton suffered a compensable injury on Feb. 9, 2022, while working as a delivery driver. He was initially treated days later and the employer and carrier began paying disability benefits after learning of the accident on Feb. 17, 2022. Indemnity benefits ended June 29, 2022, and his final visit with an authorized health care provider occurred in August 2022.
He later sought reimbursement in May 2023 for earlier care from an unauthorized physician, and the employer/insurer repaid him the next day. In March 2024, he filed a petition seeking additional benefits, including treatment from a neurosurgeon.
The employer/insurer argued the claim was barred by Florida’s two-year statute of limitations under state workers comp law. A judge of compensation claims agreed, ruling that the 2023 reimbursement did not qualify as the “furnishing” of benefits that would toll the limitations period.
The appellate court reversed, relying on its recent en banc decision in Estes v. Palm Beach County School Districtwhich held that a section of the law suspends — rather than extends — the two-year limitations clock when indemnity benefits are paid or authorized medical care is furnished.
Applying that reasoning, the court said the claimant’s August 2022 authorized medical treatment tolled the statute for one year, meaning the two-year limitations period did not begin running until August 2023. Because the petition was filed in March 2024, it fell well within the allowable period.
The court said it therefore did not need to decide whether the May 2023 reimbursement independently qualified as a furnishing of benefits.
“Because dismissal of Claimant’s petition for benefits was not warranted in this case, we set aside the order under review,” the court wrote.
[ad_2]
Source link
