.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

A pending petition for fees and costs only does not toll statute of limitations, nor does payment of attorney’s fees and/or costs, as these petitions are pending and relate to jurisdiction only.

American Airlines Group; American Airlines and Sedgwick CMS v. Alejandro Lopez, DCA#: 23-0379; May 22, 2024

July 1, 2024

by Linda Wagner Farrell

This claim involved a compensable accident date of August 8, 2019, where the employer/carrier provided benefits. The last benefit, an indemnity benefit, was made on November 13, 2020. Later, the parties resolved fees and costs via a stipulation, which was approved on May 3, 2021, by the judge of compensation claims. 

On December 1, 2021, the claimant filed a petition for benefits. Another petition for benefits was filed on June 6, 2022, when the claimant voluntarily dismissed the December 1, 2021, petition for benefits. The only remaining petition for benefits was filed one year, six months and 25 days after the last payment of medical or indemnity benefits, which was on November 13, 2020.

The employer/carrier asserted a statute of limitations defense under section 440.19(1), Florida Statutes.

The First District Court of Appeal held that the judge of compensation claims erred in presuming that reserving jurisdiction on a pending petition for benefits for attorney’s fees tolls the statute of limitations. Once that issue is resolved, the pending status is effectively extinguished. 

The judge also erred by disregarding the plain language of the statute. “Pending” status of a petition for benefits is an element of jurisdiction, while “tolling” is a separate legal doctrine that delays the time limits for pursuing a claim.

The payment of attorney’s fees and costs is not a “benefit.” To hold same would add another tolling event to the statute outside of the two contained in section 440.19(2), which states: “Payment of any indemnity benefits or the furnishing of remedial treatment, care or attendance.”

The First District Court of Appeal further rejected the judge of compensation’s finding that the December 1, 2021, petition for benefits extended the statute of limitations even though it was filed more than a year after the last provision of indemnity or medical benefits and the dismissal rendered it of no effect. 


 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 7, July 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.