HOSPITALS EAST LLC v. HAMPTON (2021)

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 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.

Per Curiam.

Lewis, B.L. Thomas, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.