Written By Anthony V. Cortese
Practitioners should be aware of two critical statute of limitations decisions that reinterpret the deadline for claiming benefits in certain situations.
The first is the State of Florida workers compensation decision in Hospitals East v. Hampton.1 The statute of limitations for filing a claim for workers compensation is two years from the date of injury. But if indemnity or medical benefits are provided, it is extended for a year from the last date of such payment.2 The rule had been that after a favorable stipulation or ruling for the Claimant on benefits, if there is a reservation of jurisdiction over entitlement and amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to the Claimant’s counsel from the Employer/Carrier, the statute of limitations does not begin to run and is tolled under these specific facts.3 In Hospitals East, the judge ruled in favor of the Claimant on the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees and only reserved jurisdiction over the amount to be awarded. The First District ruled that reserving only on the issue of the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded does not toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, a claim for additional medical care was denied.
A Defense Base Act decision last year, Rodriguez v. Triple Canopy,4 is authoritative for the statute of limitations in Longshore and Defense Base Act for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claims. It also has persuasive
implications for other PTSD claims, such as Florida First Responder PTSD claims.
The relevant statute of limitations facts of Rodriguez were that the claimant was exposed to explosions in Iraq in 2008, which rendered him unconscious, damaged his hearing, and killed two persons next to him. He
continued to work for the Employer until 2010, without a claim or treatment. He was not rehired. He had symptoms immediately in 2008, but he did not have a psychological evaluation or begin psychological treatment until 2016. He filed a claim in March of 2018 for psychological care, which was within two years of the psychological diagnosis of PTSD. But his claims for psychological care were dismissed as untimely.
The Benefits Review Board reversed and remanded, holding that PTSD is an occupational injury for the Claimant’s job in a combat zone, and noted that an occupational injury has a two-year statute of limitations from the date of awareness. It also ruled that until the psychologist diagnosed the claimant with work-related PTSD, there was inadequate awareness of the injury, the extent of injury and of causation, for the statute of
limitations to begin to run.
At first glance, a claim for benefits filed eight years after an explosion that caused immediate symptoms would appear to be untimely. But after an analysis of PTSD, the Board ruled for a substantially delayed date for the
start of the running of the statute of limitations. Although it is not authoritative under other statutes, it is persuasive. It may also indicate a likelihood of similar rulings about PTSD in other claims, such as for First Responders in Florida.
1 No.1D20-2961 (November 10, 2021).
2 Fla. Stat. § 440.19(1) and (2).
3 Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
4 BRB No. 20-0520 (May 27, 2021).