Hospitals East, LLC D/B/A Kindred Hospital-North Florida/Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. v. Gloria Hampton
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledNovember 10, 2021
Docket1D20-2961
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-2961
_____________________________
HOSPITALS EAST, LLC d/b/a
KINDRED HOSPITAL-NORTH
FLORIDA/SEDGWICK CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Appellants,
v.
GLORIA HAMPTON,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of
Compensation Claims.
Ralph J. Humphries, Judge.
Date of Accident: September 5, 2011.
November 10, 2021
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the Employer/Carrier
(E/C) appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC)
rejecting their statute of limitations defense. We reverse.
As background, Claimant sustained a compensable injury in
2011, and in 2013 filed a petition for benefits (PFB) seeking
disability benefits and associated penalties, interest, costs, and
attorney’s fees. The JCC entered an order in 2015 awarding the
claimed benefits, including fee and cost entitlement, but reserving
jurisdiction “to determine the amount thereof [attorney’s fees and
costs] if the parties are unable to amicably resolve this issue.” That
order was affirmed per curiam. Kindred Hospital-North
Florida/Sedgwick CMS v. Hampton, 156 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2015). In 2020, Claimant filed the instant PFB (seeking, inter
alia, medical benefits). The E/C averred that no benefits had been
provided since 2016, and argued that the statute of limitations
barred the claims. See § 440.19, Fla. Stat. (2011).
But Claimant contended, and the JCC agreed, that the 2015
order’s reservation of jurisdiction over the amount of fees and
costs—together with absence of any evidence that the amount had
been resolved—tolled the statute of limitations. Both relied on the
authority of Black v. Tomoka State Park, 106 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla.
1st DCA 2013) (“[T]he same rule [as in Longley v. Miami-Dade
County School Board, 82 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)] applies:
pending claims asserted via PFB—even claims for fees and costs—
toll the statute of limitations.”).
On de novo review, we agree with the E/C that reservation
over amount of fees and costs does not toll the statute of
limitations, because amount and entitlement are distinct for fees
and costs. See Sanchez v. Am. Airlines, 169 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2015) (holding that payment of attorney’s fee does not extend
statute of limitations because “the payment of an attorney’s fee is
neither a payment of compensation nor the furnishing of medical
treatment—the only two events that will extend the statute of
limitations under subsection 440.19(2)”). This principle undergirds
many aspects of statute of limitations law in workers’
compensation. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.124(3)(c), (5)
(indicating that, where both fee entitlement and amount are
contested, hearing can be bifurcated on request, and that JCC on
motion “shall” require party seeking fees to file verified motion
(alleging amount) if PFB seeking fee entitlement is pending, but
“may” require party to do so if entitlement has already been
determined); Limith v. Lenox on Lake, 163 So. 3d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2015) (holding that where jurisdiction was reserved over
entitlement to fees and costs, those fee and cost claims were subject
to dismissal for lack of prosecution, reasoning, “Claimant cannot
2
have it both ways—having the claim for attorney's fees and costs
toll the statute of limitations because it was brought by way of a
PFB, and also having the claim not subject to dismissal for lack of
prosecution because it is not a PFB”).
Black and Longley are distinguishable because neither
amount nor entitlement had been determined or adjudicated. Thus,
the rule stated in Black does not apply to claims about the amount
of attorney’s fees or costs.
REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order denying the
2020 PFB as barred by the statute of limitations.
LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Robert D. Pope and Ryan L. Davis of McConnaughhay, Coonrod,
Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants.
Jonathan B. Israel of Rudolph, Israel, Tucker and Ellis, P.A.,
Jacksonville, for Appellee.
3