Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Leighton v. Kratos Logistics, LLC, Ascendant Claims Services

Docket 1D2024-2569

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Civil
Filed
Jurisdiction
Florida
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type
Opinion
Case type
Civil
Docket
1D2024-2569

Appeal from an amended final compensation order of the Judge of Compensation Claims dismissing a petition for benefits as untimely under section 440.19(2), Florida Statutes.

Summary

The First District Court of Appeal reversed a workers’ compensation dismissal and set aside an amended final compensation order that had deemed Brian Leighton’s petition for benefits untimely under Florida law. The court held that, under its recent decision in Estes, the one-year tolling provision in section 440.19(2) suspends (stops) the two-year limitations clock that begins under section 440.19(1) until one year after the last furnished remedial care. Because Claimant’s last authorized medical visit was August 2, 2022, the limitations clock did not begin to run until August 2023, making the March 1, 2024 petition timely.

Issues Decided

  • Whether a petition for workers’ compensation benefits filed March 1, 2024 was barred by the two-year limitations period in section 440.19(1).
  • Whether the one-year tolling provision in section 440.19(2) suspends the limitations period until one year after payment or furnishing of remedial treatment.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on its recent en banc decision in Estes, which held that the one-year tolling provision in section 440.19(2) suspends the two-year limitations period in subsection (1) rather than extending it. Because Claimant’s last authorized medical care occurred on August 2, 2022, the tolling period stopped the limitations clock and that clock did not begin to run until August 2023. Filing on March 1, 2024 fell within the two-year period that began in August 2023, so dismissal as untimely was not warranted.

Authorities Cited

  • Section 440.19(1), Florida Statutes§ 440.19(1), Fla. Stat. (2021)
  • Section 440.19(2), Florida Statutes§ 440.19(2), Fla. Stat. (2021)
  • Estes v. Palm Beach County School District (First DCA en banc)51 Fla. L. Weekly D536a, 2026 WL 796496 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 23, 2026)

Parties

Appellant
Brian Leighton
Appellee
Kratos Logistics, LLC
Appellee
Ascendant Claims Services
Judge
Iliana Forte (JCC)

Key Dates

Date of accident
2022-02-09
Initial medical evaluation (Dr. Bartoli)
2022-02-12
Employer/carrier learned of injury
2022-02-17
E/C authorized treatment and began paying benefits
2022-02-22
Final payment of indemnity benefits
2022-06-29
Last authorized health care visit
2022-08-01
Claimant sought reimbursement from E/C
2023-05-09
Claimant filed petition for benefits
2024-03-01
Decision date
2026-05-06

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Return to JCC for merits proceedings

    The claimant should proceed with prosecution of the petition before the Judge of Compensation Claims so the requested medical treatment and other relief can be adjudicated on the merits.

  2. 2

    Employers/carrier to prepare defense

    The employer/carrier should prepare substantive defenses to the petition’s medical and indemnity claims, gathering medical records and witness evidence.

  3. 3

    Consider seeking further appellate review

    Either party unhappy with this decision may consult counsel about filing a petition for discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court within the applicable timeframe.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The court set aside the order dismissing the petition and ruled the March 1, 2024 petition was timely because the limitations clock was suspended until one year after the last authorized care in August 2022.
Who is affected by this decision?
Brian Leighton (the claimant) benefits because his petition can proceed; employers and carriers in Florida may be affected by the court’s interpretation of the tolling rule.
What happens next in the case?
The dismissal is vacated and the claimant’s petition for benefits can proceed in the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims for adjudication on the merits.
On what legal basis was the petition found timely?
The court applied section 440.19(2), as interpreted in Estes, holding the one-year tolling provision suspends the two-year limitations period until one year after payment or furnished care.
Can this ruling be appealed further?
Yes, the parties may seek further review to the Florida Supreme Court if they pursue the appropriate discretionary review procedures.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2024-2569
                 _____________________________

BRIAN LEIGHTON,

    Appellant,

    v.

KRATOS LOGISTICS, LLC and
ASCENDANT CLAIMS SERVICES,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims.
Iliana Forte, Judge.

Date of Accident: February 9, 2022.

                           May 6, 2026

PER CURIAM.

     Claimant, Brian Leighton, appeals an amended final
compensation order in which the Judge of Compensation Claims
(JCC) deemed his most recent petition for benefits untimely under
section 440.19(2), Florida Statutes. For the reasons that follow,
we hold that the petition was timely filed and, therefore, set aside
the amended order.

     As found by the JCC, Claimant sustained a compensable
injury on February 9, 2022, while in the course and scope of his
employment as a delivery driver. On February 12, Claimant was
evaluated by Dr. Bartoli, who prescribed medication and physical
therapy. On February 17, the employer/carrier (E/C) first learned
of the accident and injury, and on February 22, the E/C authorized
treatment and began to pay disability benefits. The E/C’s final
payment of indemnity benefits occurred on June 29, 2022.
Claimant’s final visit to an authorized health care provider
occurred on August 1, 2022. On May 9, 2023, Claimant sought
reimbursement from the E/C for Dr. Bartoli’s care. The E/C
reimbursed Claimant for that care the following day.

     On March 1, 2024, Claimant filed the petition for benefits at
issue, requesting treatment from a neurosurgeon, among other
things. The E/C asserted that the petition was barred by the
statute of limitations. Claimant argued below, as he does on
appeal, that the E/C’s May 2023 reimbursement rendered his
petition timely. The JCC found merit in the statute of limitations
defense, finding that the E/C’s reimbursement did not constitute a
“furnishing” of benefits under section 440.19(2), Florida Statutes.
This appeal followed.

      Pursuant to section 440.19(1), Florida Statutes (2021), a
petition for benefits is barred unless it is filed “within 2 years after
the date on which the employee knew or should have known that
the injury or death arose out of work performed in the course and
scope of employment.” Section 440.19(2), Florida Statutes (2021),
tolls the two-year period when “[p]ayment of any indemnity benefit
or the furnishing of remedial treatment, care, or attendance
pursuant to either a notice of injury or a petition for benefits [is
made] . . . for 1 year from the date of such payment.”

     In Estes v. Palm Beach County School District, 51 Fla. L.
Weekly D536a, 2026 WL 796496, *8 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 23, 2026)
(en banc), we recently held that section 440.19(2) suspends or
temporarily stops the limitation period set forth in subsection (1)
rather than extending it, as our previous case law had concluded.
There, the claimant received workers’ compensation benefits
immediately following her workplace accident in 2021 until
January 2023. Id. at *1. We concluded that the one-year tolling
clock contained within section 440.19(2) stopped the running of the
two-year-limitations-period clock after the accident until one year
after she received those benefits, which was through at least
January 2024. Id. at *7. As such, when the claimant filed her


                                   2
petition for benefits in June 2024, she was only about six months
into the running of the two-year-limitations-period clock, which
did not expire until January 2026. Id. For that reason, we set
aside the final order’s dismissal of the petition. Id.

     Based upon our holding in Estes, we need not consider here
whether the E/C’s May 2023 reimbursement to Claimant
constituted a furnishing of benefits under section 440.19(2)
sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. This is because, as the
JCC found, and as the E/C acknowledges, the last provision of
authorized medical care for Claimant occurred on August 2, 2022.
In accordance with the holding of Estes and pursuant to section
440.19(2), that furnishing of care tolled section 440.19(1)’s two-
year-limitations-period clock until one year after receipt of that
care. In other words, subsection (2)’s two-year-limitations period
did not begin to run until August 2023. The petition for benefits
at issue was filed in March 2024, squarely within that two-year
period.

    Because dismissal of Claimant’s petition for benefits was not
warranted in this case, we SET ASIDE the order under review.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and TREADWELL, JJ., concur.
                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Michael J. Winer of Winer Law Group PA, Tampa, for Appellant.

Kimberly J. Fernandes of Kelley Kronenberg, Tallahassee, for
Appellees.




                                  3