Statute of Limitations

The baseline rule

A petition for benefits is barred unless two things are true:

1. You advised your employer of the injury as required by § 440.185(1), and
2. The petition is filed within two years after the date you knew or should have known the injury or death arose out of work performed in the course and scope of employment.

Note the trigger. It is not necessarily the accident date — it is when you knew or reasonably should have known the injury was work-related. For repetitive trauma and occupational disease, where the connection emerges gradually, that can be considerably later.

What changed in 2026

Section 440.19(2) says that payment of any indemnity benefit, or the furnishing of remedial treatment, care, or attendance, “shall toll the limitations period … for 1 year from the date of such payment.”

For 26 years, Florida courts read “toll” as meaning “extend.” Under that reading — from the First District’s 1999 Best decision — the rule was simple and widely published: a petition is timely if filed within two years of the accident, or within one year of the last benefit, whichever is later.

On March 23, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal, sitting en banc, held that reading was wrong.

The court concluded that “toll” carries its established legal meaning — to suspend a limitations period, not to extend it. Chief Judge Osterhaus, writing for the majority, relied on the ordinary legal definition, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Artis v. District of Columbia, and on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Hankey v. Yarian, which distinguished extension from tolling as separate concepts with different effects. The court also pointed to § 440.19(5), where “toll” plainly means suspend, reasoning the same word cannot mean something different two subsections earlier.

How the deadline works now

The new framework runs two clocks:

1. The two year limitations clock starts when you knew or should have known the injury was work-related
2. Each time a benefit is paid or treatment furnished, that clock stops, and a one year tolling clock begins
3. If another benefit is paid before the one-year clock expires, it resets to a full year
4. When the one year clock finally runs out without being reset, the two year clock resumes from where it stopped — not from zero, and not from the beginning.

The practical effect is substantial. In a claim where benefits were paid early and regularly, most of the original two years may still be unspent and paused years after the accident.

The case

Nancy Estes, a teacher with the Palm Beach County School District, tripped and fell at work on September 30, 2021. The employer and carrier accepted the injury and paid medical and indemnity benefits for roughly sixteen months, through January 26, 2023. On February 8, 2023, the carrier filed a notice of denial asserting the accident was no longer the major contributing cause of her need for further treatment.

She filed her petition in June 2024 — about seventeen months after her last payment. Under the old rule, the math was straightforward and fatal: the one year window from the January 2023 benefit expired in January 2024, five months before she filed. The Judge of Compensation Claims dismissed her petition with prejudice.

Under the new reading, the outcome reversed. Benefits began within two days of the accident, so the two-year clock was suspended almost immediately and stayed suspended while benefits continued and for one year after the last one. It resumed around January 2024 with most of the original two years still unspent. Her June 2024 petition was timely — with the actual deadline not arriving until roughly January 2026.

Other provisions that still apply

• Tolling does not cover everything. The one year tolling period does not apply to the issues of compensability, date of maximum medical improvement, or permanent impairment.
• An imprecise petition doesn’t toll. Filing a petition does not toll the limitations period unless it meets the specificity requirements of § 440.192.
• The carrier must raise it early. Failure to file within the prescribed period is not a bar unless the carrier advances the defense in its initial response to the petition.
• Estoppel is hard to establish. If the carrier shows it gave notice under § 440.185 and the employer posted notice under § 440.055, the employee must demonstrate estoppel by clear and convincing evidence.
• Minors and incapacity. Section 440.19(5) tolls the period for a minor or mentally incompetent person without a guardian.

What this means for your claim

Two things follow, and they point in opposite directions.

First, if you were told your claim was time barred under the old rule, that conclusion may no longer be correct. Claims written off on the “one year from last benefit” calculation are worth a second look.

Second, do not treat the new framework as a reason to relax. The dual clock calculation is genuinely difficult; it depends on an accurate record of every payment and every treatment, and the law in this area is unsettled — two judges dissented, and one expressly suggested the Legislature may need to act.

The safe course has not changed: if benefits have stopped, find out where your deadline actually falls rather than assuming.