Greetings,
Well I am sure most of you saw our client email blast (below) last week about the mess the 1st DCA made of the SOL in the Estes case. (if you don’t get our newsletter and other client blasts register here: https://eraclides.com/newsletter-2/)
I have received a few dozen questions about it, and I have been trying to wrap my head around how to handle it and a more simplified way to explain it. So here goes.
An easier way to think about it is basically the SOL in most cases is going to be 3* years or right around 3 years from the last provision of a benefit. *You can deduct from the 3 years any time spent before the claimant first had authorized treatment.
Here is an example:
- Date of accident January 1, 2022.
- The claimant seeks authorized treatment on the date of accident, 1/1/2022.
- The claimant’s last benefit is the last IB payment through date, 7/31/2022.
So, given that they treated on the day of accident, the SOL is 3 years from the last benefit, 8/1/2025. One year from the last benefit clock, and THEN the two-year clock tacked on afterwards.
What would change it is if the claimant did not have any authorized treatment or benefits for a month after the accident. If the first authorized visit was 2/1/2022, the SOL would run on 7/1/2025 a month sooner in this example. In the first month before authorized treatment, the 2-year clock started to run but it stopped when benefits started. So there is only 1 year and 11 months left on that clock. So the SOL would be 2 years and 11 months after the last benefit because she burned a month before benefits started.
So, look it at as 3 years after the last provision of a benefit, minus any time before benefits started. In the Estes case that caused this mess, it was 2 days. So she had 2 years and 364 days after her last benefit for the SOL.
This appears to be the way it will be applied by the JCC’s, and we will revisit this if it becomes something else in practice.
As far as how this affects existing cases, settled cases are settled. Cases that you denied for SOL under the old law, will stay denied if the new SOL method still would have run. If you denied a case for old SOL method, but under this new method it hasn’t run yet, that can come back around on you. As always, I am available for any questions!
Sincerely,
Morgan Indek | Managing Partner
On Monday, the First DCA issued a decision that upended how the Florida WC industry has applied the statute of limitations since 1994 in Estes v. Palm Beach County School District (1D2025-0079). The First DCA noted their prior interpretation of the SOL in 5 different cases, starting in 1999 all the way through 2015, was wrong. At the center of the decision is the meaning of the word “toll” in section 440.19. Historically, the industry has treated the two applicable limitation periods as running concurrently. In other words, the two-year statute from the date of accident ran continuously, while the one-year period from the last provision of benefits could run, and even expire, within that same timeframe. The court has now clarified that this approach was incorrect. According to the First DCA, the two-year statute is tolled (i.e., paused) while the claimant is receiving benefits, and only resumes running after benefits stop. This interpretation effectively creates two separate “clocks” that start and stop at different times, which can significantly extend the statute of limitations beyond what has traditionally been applied. How this played out in the Estes case: Date of accident: 9/30/2021 The claimant received initial medical treatment two days later. Those two days counted toward the two-year statute before it was paused. She then treated for approximately 16 months (through 1/26/2023). During this time, the two-year statute (or clock) was tolled. One-year statute begins: 1/26/2023. This one-year period from the last provision of benefits expired on 1/26/2024. Remaining two-year period resumes: After 1/26/2024. With only two days previously used, nearly the full two-year period remained, extending the deadline to 1/24/2026. The claimant filed a Petition for Benefits in June 2024—more than one year after the last benefit and more than two years after the accident. Under the prior understanding, the claim would have been barred. Under this new framework, however, the claim was deemed timely. What does this means for your claims? This decision has the potential to expand exposure in cases where the statute of limitations was previously believed to have run. Claims that may have been considered time-barred could now remain viable under this revised analysis. As always, our team is available to discuss how this ruling may impact your specific cases. |