7 Key Cases on Ripeness in Fla. Workers’ Comp

Key Cases

Under Florida Statutes Section 440.192, an employee may, for any benefit that is "ripe, due, and owing," file with the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims a petition for benefits which meets the requirements of this section and the definition of specificity in s. 440.02.

So, what does "ripe, due, and owing" mean under Florida law? Here's a look at the key cases on the topic.

(1) Panzer Law, P.A. v. Palm Beach County School District, 150 So.3d 823 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014). An E/C's failure to file a motion to dismiss the PFB for lack of specificity when the physician's recommendation is not attached resulted in a waiver of any entitlement to challenge the ripeness of the claimed benefit in the fee hearing. an attachment would both have established ripeness and satisfied the specificity requirement, and the E/C's failure to object to the absence should be deemed a waiver of both legal defenses.

(2) M.D. Transport v. Paschen, 996 So.2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). The statutory language in Fla. Stat. Sec. 440.25(4)(d) that "any benefit due but not raised at the final hearing which was ripe, due, or owing at the time of the final hearing is waived" did not alter Claimant's substantiative right to receive medical treatment or the type of treatment to which Claimant was entitled. The language only prescribed the means and methods with which he must have complied to establish his entitlement to medical treatment. 

(3) Soriano v. Gold Coast Aerial Lift, Inc., 705 So.2d 636 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998). The JCC erroneously equated ripeness with medical necessity. Ripeness refers to "a real, substantial controversy which is definite and concrete rather than hypothetical or abstract. An authorized treating physician recommended a neurosurgical consultation if the worker refused to receive epidural injections. The fact that another physician had a different opinion as to the necessity of such a procedure did not render the worker's request "unripe." Indeed, two months after other physician stated in his deposition that no neurosurgical consultation was necessary, the E/C agreed in mediation to authorize one, and it did not contend on appeal that the worker's medical condition had changed in any way by the time of mediation.

(4) Daytona Beach Geriatric Center v. Linehan, 673 So.2d 548 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996). The worker sought permanent, total disability benefits commencing Sept. 15, 1993, a year before he filed his petition for benefits, but there was no mention in the opinion that any physician ever considered him permanently and totally disabled (PTD). Indeed, the JCC considered him PTD commencing July 13, 1995, the date of the hearing, based upon an unsuccessful work search, rather than on any medical evidence. As a result, his claim for such benefits was not ripe when he filed it on July 21, 1994.

(5) Audio Visual Innovations, Inc. v. Spiessbach, 119 So.3d 522 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013).  An employee seeking "any benefit that is ripe, due, and owing" initiates this procedure by filing "a petition for benefits" with the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. However, this procedure is completely separate from a cause of action for retaliatory discharge under Sec. 440.205, which is resolved by the filing of a complaint in circuit court. 

(6) McDonald's Restaurant v. Montes, 736 So.2d 768 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999). The E/C was on notice of claimant's petition upon receipt thereof, at the point making the claim "ripe, due, and owing."

(7) Bronson's v. Mann, 70 So.3d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). To the extent the JCC's order could be interpreted as approving the life care plan, as opposed to awarding the benefits recommended in the life care plan, the order was erroneous because (1) a life care plan is not in itself a benefit recognized under the workers' compensation law, and (2) the JCC expressly stated that the E/C would have to modify the order before it could deny the benefits recommended in the life care plan although those benefits were not ripe, due, and owing. Consequently, the JCC's award of "the recommendations made in the life care plan," which he found were not ripe, due, and owing, was erroneous.

Practice Point

Florida courts consistently hold that a workers' compensation benefit is "ripe, due, and owing" when there is a present, concrete dispute over an existing entitlement, but not when the claim depends on future events, speculation, or benefits that have not yet matured. If the benefit is needed now and genuinely disputed, it is likely ripe; if it depends on what might happen later, it probably is not.

Share This Article: