Le'tavia Jones v. State of Florida, Department of Corrections-Columbia Correctional Institution/State of Florida Division of Risk Management
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 29, 2021
Docket1D20-1741
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-1741
_____________________________
LE'TAVIA JONES,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS-COLUMBIA
CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION/STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of
Compensation Claims.
Timothy S. Stanton, Judge.
Date of Accident: January 7, 2019.
July 29, 2021
PER CURIAM.
Claimant, Le’tavia Jones, appeals the Judge of Compensation
Claims’ (JCC) order denying her claim for temporary indemnity
benefits for her mental injury based on his conclusion that section
440.093(3), Florida Statutes (2018), precluded her entitlement to
such benefits because more than six months had elapsed since she
reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for her
accompanying physical injury. For the reasons explained below,
we reverse. *
Facts
While Ms. Jones was working in a correctional facility, an
inmate attacked her, placing her in a chokehold and causing neck
and throat injuries. She attained physical MMI just two weeks
later and was assigned a zero percent permanent impairment
rating. As a result, she did not receive any permanent impairment
benefits. In the meantime, Claimant’s authorized medical
providers referred her for psychiatric treatment. The psychiatrist,
in turn, also referred her for psychological care. Her ultimate
diagnosis was acute stress and post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). The psychologist placed Ms. Jones on a no-work status
until she reached psychological MMI on November 11, 2019, but
deferred to the psychiatrist regarding psychiatric work restrictions
and MMI. Appellees ceased paying indemnity benefits six months
after Ms. Jones reached physical MMI, prompting her to file a
claim for temporary benefits for the period of July 25, 2019, and
continuing.
In his order denying this claim, the JCC found that temporary
indemnity benefits for mental injuries are limited to six calendar
months after a claimant reaches physical MMI pursuant to section
440.093(3), relying on Utopia Home Care/Guarantee Insurance
Co. v. Alvarez, 230 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). And because Ms.
Jones’ claim was for a period commencing more than six months
post-MMI, the JCC concluded the statute precluded her
entitlement to any additional indemnity benefits. As we now
explain, we agree with Claimant that the JCC erred.
Analysis
Although the JCC correctly found that section 440.093(3)’s
six-month limit on temporary benefits commences from the time a
claimant reaches physical MMI, as opposed to being a bank of time,
* Because we reverse, we need not address Claimant’s
constitutional arguments.
2
where he erred was finding that this limit applied to Ms. Jones
despite the fact that she had not received, nor was receiving, any
permanent impairment benefits. In W.G. Roe & Sons v. Razo-
Guevara, 999 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), this court held in no
uncertain terms that this statutory provision does not apply to a
claimant not being paid impairment benefits. Therefore, because
Ms. Jones’ mental injury manifested itself within six months of
reaching physical MMI, and she was not receiving impairment
benefits for her physical injury after reaching that point, section
440.093(3)’s statutory cap does not apply to her. Cf. Alvarez, 230
So. 3d at 72 (in which claimant received impairment benefits for
her physical injury); Sch. Bd. of Lee Cnty. v. Huben, 165 So. 3d 865
(Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (in which claimant’s mental injury manifested
more than six months after reaching physical MMI and she
received impairment benefits for her physical injury).
REVERSED.
ROBERTS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Michael J. Winer, Tampa, and Christopher M. Costello, Lake City,
for Appellant.
Hayley Lewis Folmar and Ryan L. Davis, Jacksonville, for
Appellees.
3