The recent decision in Ortiz v. Winn-Dixie, Inc., 1DCA 2021-885 (December 23, 2024), issued by the Florida First District Court of Appeal, has significant implications for how employers, insurance carriers and servicing agents handle workers' compensation claims. As a firm dedicated to defending insurers in these matters, we want to provide a detailed analysis of this ruling and offer proactive strategies for managing claims in light of the precedent set by this case.

Procedural History

Ortiz I

The Ortiz decision stems out of a JCC order entered February 25, 2021. That JCC order primarily decided the case, and denied benefits to the Claimant, on the issues of authorization of care, relationship of care to the work accident, and statute of limitations.

The order was appealed and on May 31, 2023, the First DCA rendered an opinion affirming the JCC’s decision (Ortiz I). The first appellate opinion was decided on reasons other than the statute of limitations. However, the DCA (Judge Tannenbaum writing for the majority), went further and provided a detailed explanation of the tolling provisions of the statute of limitations pursuant to 440.19, Fla. Stat. This explanation dramatically changed the way the statute of limitations had been calculated on Florida Workers’ Compensation matters. Based on the rationale in Ortiz I, the longstanding method of looking at whether two years had passed from the accident and if so, then determining whether there had been payment of compensation or provision of medical care within the last year to toll the statute of limitations was replaced with a complex calculation of a two year master limitation clock and a tolling timer.

The Ortiz I method essentially found that each payment of compensation or provision of medical care engaged the tolling timer for a period of one year from the date of such payment or provision of care. The two year master limitation clock could only run when the tolling timer was not engaged. This had the practical effect of extending the statute of limitations well beyond two years. At a minimum, under Ortiz I, if any care was provided or compensation paid, the statute of limitations would be at least three (3) years.

The Claimant moved for rehearing which sought reversal of the JCC’s order only on the issues of relationship of care and authorization of care, rather than the new statute of limitations clock/timer theory. The E/C responded and requested affirmance of the JCC’s decision but to abandon the portion of the opinion regarding the statute of limitations which he argued was pure dicta.

Ortiz II

After over one year following the filing of a Motion for Rehearing, on December 23, 2024, the First DCA issued their new opinion, Ortiz II. The opinion “set aside” the order of the JCC. This opinion, also written by Judge Tannenbaum essentially reversed the JCC’s order on issues of causation and authorization. The majority opinion does not address the master limitation clock and tolling timer analysis of the statute of limitations, but Judge Tannenbaum also authored a lengthy concurring opinion advocating for this method to calculate the statute of limitations.

Judge Bilbrey also wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing that Judge Tannenbaum’s opinion, like his, has no precedential value and “may be found to be persuasive or may be discarded.”

What This Means for the Future

At this time, Ortiz I is no longer binding authority. The First DCA granted Claimant’s Motion for Rehearing and substituted the opinion in Ortiz II for their original opinion (Oritz I). Ortiz II, has no direct precedential impact on the statute of limitations, but the concurring opinion is clearly directed to practitioners and judges that the tolling timer/master limitation clock method of calculation will be well received by at least one member of the First DCA. The concurring opinion also provides a rationale to support the tolling timer/master limitation clock method. This new opinion does not provide any certainty as to how the statute of limitations will be interpreted moving forward.

Judge Tannenbaum’s concurrence also notes that since Ortiz I there have been Judges of Compensation Claims who have adopted the tolling timer/master limitations clock analysis in their orders. His opinion seems to encourage those JCCs to continue to support this method. There are, however, other JCCs who have not adopted the tolling timer/master limitations clock theory referenced in Judge Tannenbaum’s concurring opinion. The knowledge that there is a receptive judge at the appellate level and JCCs who have also adopted this method continues to remove stability in the way the statute of limitations will be interpreted.

Practitioners should be aware that there are currently at least two additional appeals pending before the First DCA that could bring some degree of stability to this issue. As of right now, however, the law, which had seemed well settled since 1997, continues to be in flux. Also, as the opinion of the First DCA in Ortiz II was just released, it is not yet final as the time for rehearing has not yet passed.

The Ortiz decision serves as a critical reminder of the complexities involved in workers' compensation claims and the statute of limitations. By staying informed and adopting proactive strategies, insurance carriers can better navigate these challenges and protect their interests.

If you have questions about how this decision affects your claims or need assistance with workers' compensation defense strategies, QPWB is here to help.