Cases from cite.case.law:

MIAMI- DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. RUSS,, 88 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . employee in accordance with s. 440.185 and that the employer has posted notice in accordance with s. 440.055 . . . was instead “clear and convincing evidence” because it proved compliance with sections 440.185 and 440.055 . . .

MIRANDA, v. AZUL PLASTERING CORP., 74 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . employee in accordance with s. 440.185 and that the employer has posted notice in accordance with s. 440.055 . . . claimant is a preponderance of the evidence, unless the E/C has complied with both sections 440.185 and 440.055 . . .

GAUTHIER, v. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, 38 So. 3d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Because the E/C complied with the notice requirements of sections 440.185 and 440.055, Florida Statutes . . .

DEERE, v. SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 880 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Because the E/C complied with the notice requirements of sections 440.185 and 440.055, Florida Statutes . . .

CRUTCHER, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, 834 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . employee in accordance with s. 14-0.185 and that the employer has posted notice in accordance with s. 440.055 . . . language must be read to say that the E/C’s failure to comply with either section 440.185 or section 440.055 . . . limitations defense if it has failed to comply strictly with the provisions of either section 440.185 or 440.055 . . . claimant need only show that the E/C failed to comply strictly with either section 440.185 or section 440.055 . . . claimant is a preponderance of the evidence, unless the E/C has complied with both sections 440.185 and 440.055 . . . prove estoppel by a preponderance of the evidence unless the E/C complies with sections 440.185 and 440.055 . . . employee in accordance with s. 440.185 and that the employer has posted notice in accordance with s. 440.055 . . . claimant need only show that the E/C failed to comply strictly with either section 440.185 or section 440.055 . . .

LARRY K. MEYER, P. A. v. M. KIMBERLY,, 765 So. 2d 951 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . under principles of es-toppel because the appellant had not posted the notice referenced in section 440.055 . . . We reverse the order because section 440.055 is of doubtful applicability to the appellant and, in any . . . Section 440.055 provides as follows: An employer who employs fewer than four employees, who is permitted . . . required by 440.055 is notice which must be given to an employee who is entitled to benefits, not to . . . Although it is possible that the 440.185 and 440.19 references to 440.055 reflect a legislative error . . .

GAINES, v. ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES, 710 So. 2d 139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . employee in accordance with s. 440.185 and that the employer has posted notice in accordance with s. 440.055 . . .