Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

544 So. 2d 269

544 So.2d 269

14 Fla.L.Weekly 1260

Colvin v. Colvin

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-05-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2005

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[c]laimant's continued receipt of treatment provided by the E/C (whether remedial or palliative) extended the limitations period for filing his claim”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 917 So. 2d 361 - BORNEISEN v. Home Depot

Relies on 519 So. 2d 1017 - City of Orlando v. Blackburn · 527 So. 2d 886 - Tower Chemical Co. v. Hubbard

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-05-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The claimant in this Workers’ Compensation case appeals an order denying a claim for temporary partial wage loss benefits or *270wage loss benefits. The claim was denied on the ground that the claim was not timely under section 440.15(3)(b). We reverse and remand for a determination on claimant’s entitlement to any wage loss without deciding the merits of the deputy commissioner’s application of this statute.

¶2The claim was filed on October 21, 1987. It appears from the record that the Employer/Carrier (E/C) furnished medical care from Dr. Riddick on July 11, 1986 and again on November 10, 1987, after the claim was filed. On the latter visit claimant reported experiencing pain and Dr. Rid-dick prescribed anti-inflammatories. Claimant’s continued receipt of treatment provided by the E/C (whether remedial or palliative) extended the limitations period for filing his claim. Section 440.19(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979); City of Orlando v. Blackburn, 519 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Tower Chemical Co. v. Hubbard, 527 So.2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

¶3REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHIVERS, WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ„ concur.
/544/so2d/269 · .json · Public domain