South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog
Workers’ compensation benefits provide essential support for employees recovering from work-related injuries. These benefits often include ongoing medical care, especially for permanent conditions requiring long-term supervision. However, disputes can arise when employers or insurance carriers claim that the statute of limitations bars further benefits, cutting off an injured worker’s access to care. A recent Florida appellate court decision highlights this issue, emphasizing the importance of understanding how the statute of limitations operates in workers’ compensation cases and the role of tolling periods in preserving an injured worker’s rights.
The Role of the Statute of Limitations in Workers’ Compensation
Under Florida’s workers’ compensation laws, an employee generally has two years from the date of their injury—or the date they knew or should have known the injury was work-related—to file a petition for benefits (PFB). However, this timeframe can be extended when an employer or insurance carrier provides authorized medical care related to the injury. Each instance of authorized treatment restarts the tolling period, effectively giving the injured worker additional time to file a claim.
In the recent case, the employer and its servicing agent argued that the statute of limitations had expired, barring the injured worker from filing a PFB for further care. The worker, who had suffered a compensable injury requiring the removal of a kidney, had been receiving ongoing follow-up care from an authorized urologist for years. When the urologist stopped billing the servicing agent, the employer claimed the tolling period had ended, making the worker’s PFB time-barred. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding that the worker’s visits to the authorized urologist constituted furnished care, which extended the statute of limitations.
How Tolling Periods Affect Workers’ Compensation Claims
Tolling periods are crucial in workers’ compensation cases, particularly for employees with permanent medical conditions requiring ongoing treatment. Florida law recognizes that continued medical care signals the employer’s acknowledgment of its obligation to address the injury. Each instance of furnished care restarts the tolling period, preventing the statute of limitations from running out as long as the employer provides treatment related to the original injury.
In this case, the court found that the worker’s three visits to the authorized urologist fell within the scope of care provided by the employer for the compensable kidney injury. Despite the servicing agent’s claim that the urologist had stopped billing them, there was no evidence to suggest that the employer had deauthorized the care or communicated this to the worker. The court determined that these visits constituted medical treatment that tolled the statute of limitations, making the worker’s PFB timely.
Errors in the Original Ruling
The judge of compensation claims (JCC) initially dismissed the worker’s PFB as time-barred, relying on the employer’s assertion that the statute of limitations had expired. However, the appellate court found this conclusion unsupported by the evidence. The record showed that the worker’s visits to the urologist were consistent with the care authorized by the employer for years. The court emphasized that the absence of billing from the urologist did not negate the fact that care was provided, nor did it relieve the employer of its obligation to continue furnishing treatment.
The appellate court also highlighted the lack of evidence showing any change in the worker’s condition or the nature of the care provided. The employer failed to demonstrate that the visits were unrelated to the compensable injury, undermining the statute of limitations defense. By overlooking this evidence, the JCC erred in dismissing the PFB, prompting the appellate court to reverse the decision and remand the case.
The Responsibility of Employers and Insurance Carriers
Employers and insurance carriers are responsible for ensuring injured workers receive the care they are entitled to under Florida law. This includes clearly communicating any changes in authorized treatment or the status of providers. As seen in this case, failing to inform an employee about the termination of authorized care can lead to legal challenges and the reversal of decisions.
Additionally, servicing agents must carefully evaluate the records of authorized providers before asserting that the statute of limitations has expired. Overlooking treatment or misinterpreting the scope of furnished care risks legal errors that can ultimately harm injured workers and result in costly litigation. Upholding these responsibilities helps maintain the integrity of the workers’ compensation system and ensures that employees receive the benefits they need to recover.
Preserving Access to Benefits
Understanding their rights under Florida’s workers’ compensation laws is essential for injured workers to preserve access to necessary care. When an employer or servicing agent disputes a claim based on the statute of limitations, evaluating whether the tolling period has been appropriately applied is essential. Medical treatment provided by authorized providers often extends the timeframe for filing a PFB, protecting the worker’s right to pursue benefits.
Your Recovery Matters—Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Lawyer Today
After an accident, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by medical bills, insurance claims, and financial stress. If another person’s negligence caused your injuries, you deserve an advocate who will fight for your rights. At Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, we have decades of experience representing injury victims throughout South Florida and can help you seek the compensation you need. Call us at 877-448-8585 to set up a free consultation and learn how we can assist you.