Cases from cite.case.law:

RENTE, v. ORANGE COUNTY BOCC, 263 So. 3d 294 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . days after the initial provision of compensation or benefits as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . . Upon commencement of payment as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192(8), the carrier shall provide . . . the initial provision of benefits or payment of compensation as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . .

O. MOISE, v. DISNEY POP CENTURY RESORT, Co., 244 So. 3d 403 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . The date of filing of a PFB, which meets the specificity requirements of section 440.192, Florida Statutes . . .

MATHIS, v. BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 224 So. 3d 852 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . days after the initial provision of compensation or benefits as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . . Upon commencement of payment as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192(8), the carrier shall provide . . . the initial provision of benefits or payment of compensation as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . .

JENNINGS, v. HABANA HEALTH CARE CENTER, 183 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . not a prevailing party because the employer or its carrier provided benefits “timely” under sections 440.192 . . . Section 440.192(8) provides that, within fourteen days of the receipt of a petition for benefits, the . . . from entitlement to attorney’s fees, Whether benefits are timely furnished, either under subsection 440.192 . . . As required by statute, see section 440.192(4), Florida, Statutes (2014), her petition for benefits included . . .

BABAHMETOVIC, v. SCAN DESIGN FLORIDA INC., 176 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . and investigate rule” requires: Upon commencement of payment as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . . accordance with s. 4,4,0.20(4,) is deemed to have accepted the employee’s injuries as compensable-” § 440.192 . . .

O. SIERRA, v. METROPOLITAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, 188 So. 3d 863 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Snyder, 765 So.2d 752, 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also § 440.192(8), Fla. . . .

CUENCA, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, 160 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. (2013) (requiring carrier to respond within fourteen days). . . .

PANZER LAW, P. A. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT A, 150 So. 3d 823 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . based on the failure of the relevant petition for benefits (PFB) to meet the requirements of section 440.192 . . . Because the JCC erred by failing to give full effect to all of the provisions of section 440.192, we . . . Stat., while section 440.192, Florida Statutes (2006 and 2008), provided in part: (1) Any employee may . . . Our conclusion in this regard is buttressed by the Legislature’s adding to section 440.192 the language . . . for Resolving Benefit Disputes” from section 440.19 to section 440.192. . . .

PICON, v. GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC. a, 548 F. App'x 561 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 440.192(8). . . . Stat. § 440.192 (“Any employee may, for any benefit that is ripe, due, and owing, file with the Office . . .

AUDIO VISUAL INNOVATIONS, INC. v. G. SPIESSBACH,, 119 So. 3d 522 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 440.192. . . . . § 440.192(1). . . .

BLACK, v. TOMOKA STATE PARK, 106 So. 3d 973 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . In both cases, the claimants had filed a prior PFB, compliant with section 440.192, Florida Statutes, . . .

MIRANDA, v. BRIDGE,, 112 So. 3d 500 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . hold hearing(s), and adjudicate claims, is predicated on filing of petition for benefits under section 440.192 . . .

SHANNON, v. CHENEY BROTHERS INC., 98 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . deposition set by an employer or carrier when no petition for benefits has been filed under section 440.192 . . . See § 440.192(3), Fla. Stat. . . . .”); see also 440.192(3), Fla. Stat. (2010) (same). . . . document that if timely filed would toll the statute of limitations — has been filed under section 440.192 . . . is used in section 440.30; the motion was not filed in accordance with the requirements of section 440.192 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,, 97 So. 3d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Montes, 736 So.2d 768, 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT F. A. v. BLAKE- WATSON,, 91 So. 3d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . not made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before filing the PFB, as is required by section 440.192 . . . fee motion, asserting no fees were due on the July PFB because that PFB did not comply with section 440.192 . . . On appeal, the E/C makes two arguments: that fees based on the July PFB are precluded by section 440.192 . . . On cross-appeal, Claimant presents three arguments: that the July PFB complied with section 440.192(4 . . . The JCC erred in dismissing the July PFB, both because section 440.192 does not independently give the . . .

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

. . . This reading of Certain fits with the requirement in section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes, that an E/ . . . E/C’s failure to respond to the petition for benefits within fourteen days, as required by section 440.192 . . .

OCEAN REEF CLUB, INC. a v. WILCZEWSKI, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 440.192 of the Florida Statutes gives the right to file a petition for benefits solely to the . . . See § 440.192, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. K. RIPPY,, 67 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . benefits as “a pleading invoking the jurisdiction of the OJCC and subject to the requirements of Sections 440.192 . . . Section 440.192 establishes the requirements for the filing of a petition for benefits, specifically . . .

HDV CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS, INC. v. E. ARAGON,, 66 So. 3d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Indeed, section 440.192(3), Florida Statutes (2007), contemplates such an award: “A petition for benefits . . .

BRONSON S INC v. MANN,, 70 So. 3d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 440.192, Florida Statutes (2009), provides in pertinent part: (1) Any employee may, for any benefit . . .

PADILLA, v. COLLINS CONTRACTING,, 22 So. 3d 124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . judge erred by dismissing his original petition for benefits for reasons not enumerated in section 440.192 . . . Claimant correctly argues section 440.192(2)(a)-(j), Florida Statutes, does not require the signing of . . . 60Q-6.105(1) (providing that a claimant commences a new case by filing a petition pursuant to section 440.192 . . . Section 440.192(1) is silent as to whether rules 60Q-6.103(l)(d) and 60Q-6.105(4) must be complied with . . . Section 440.192(2), Florida Statutes (2006), provides: the [OJCC] shall review each petition and shall . . .

FARNAM, v. U. S. SUGAR CORPORATION, 9 So. 3d 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 440.192(9), Florida Statutes, allows only claims that have been listed in a petition for benefits . . .

M. D. TRANSPORT v. PASCHEN,, 996 So. 2d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . The remaining two grounds challenge the JCC’s determination that sections 440.25(4)(d) and 440.192(9) . . . The challenge to section 440.192(9), Florida Statutes, was not ruled on by the JCC and is not necessary . . .

COCA- COLA ENTERPRISES, INC. v. J. MONTIEL N, 985 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 440.192. . . . See § 440.192. . . .

CTL DISTRIBUTION, INC. v. WOOD,, 979 So. 2d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . CTL and its servicing agent neither denied the claim nor elected to “pay and investigate”: Section 440.192 . . .

AVALON CENTER v. HARDAWAY,, 967 So. 2d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . In this case, the JCC relied on section 440.192(2)(h), Florida Statutes, as support for its position . . . the name and address of the medical provider, the amounts due, and the specific dates of treatment. § 440.192 . . . We agree with the E/C that section 440.192(2)(h) does not expressly grant the JCC jurisdiction, but rather . . .

REMINGTON, v. CITY OF OCALA UNITED SELF INSURED,, 940 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . (codified at § 440.192(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994)). . . . since Bair was decided, the Legislature has left the pertinent language in sections 440.13(2)(a) and 440.192 . . .

E. MIMS, v. CONFEDERATED STAFFING,, 940 So. 2d 518 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . We decided that under such circumstances, the provisions of section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes (2000 . . .

OFFICE DEPOT v. ORTEGA,, 931 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . in finding the E/C timely filed its notice of denial within the statutory period provided in section 440.192 . . . notice of denial within 14 days after its receipt of the petition for benefits, as required by section 440.192 . . .

R. MACK, v. WESTMINSTER SUNCOAST MANOR, C. L., 929 So. 2d 610 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Although an aggrieved employee is precluded by section 440.192(3), Florida Statutes (2003), from filing . . .

RICE, v. REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, 924 So. 2d 882 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . provides that "[a] party commences a new case by filing a petition for benefits pursuant to Section 440.192 . . .

CHECKERS RESTAURANT v. WIETHOFF,, 925 So. 2d 348 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . As the earlier en banc opinion in Wuell-ing explained, section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes, must be . . . Wuelling established that the recitation as to such a waiver in section 440.192(8) is merely a reiteration . . . implicit denial of the petition for certain other purposes, an E/C’s failure to respond to a section 440.192 . . . Similarly, a section 440.192(8) notice of denial which challenges entitlement to a claimed benefit but . . . The JCC properly determined that the E/C’s failure to respond to the section 440.192 petition requesting . . .

ST. AUGUSTINE MARINE CANVAS UPHOLSTERY, INC. v. LUNSFORD,, 917 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . scheduled an appointment with the doctor instead of using the procedures set forth in sections 440.191 and 440.192 . . .

BEGLEY S CLEANING SERVICE v. COSTA,, 913 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . days after the initial provision of compensation or benefits as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . . Upon commencement of payment as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192(8), the carrier shall provide . . . the initial provision of benefits or payment of compensation as required under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . . benefits to be paid by the carrier under subsection (2) or pursuant to a petition for benefits under s. 440.192 . . .

FLORIDA DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION, v. CAGNOLI,, 914 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 2005)

. . . workers’ compensation benefits for failing to include a social security number as required by section 440.192 . . . The exception provided in section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Privacy Act would not apply to section 440.192, Florida . . . Statutes, requiring injured workers to list their social security number, because section 440.192 was . . .

NASH, v. AMR CORP., 913 So. 2d 699 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 440.192(1), Florida Statutes (2000), calls for the service “by certified mail” of a petition . . .

SOLSAA, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., 937 So. 2d 681 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . a simple question of fact: Did the carrier ever pay compensation under section 440.20(2) or section 440.192 . . . the initial provision of benefits or payment of compensation as required, under subsection (2) or s. 440.192 . . . the express statutory requirement that payment must be made pursuant to section 440.20(2) or section 440.192 . . . For better or worse, section 440.192(8) and section 440.20(4), both contemplate that in some cases, benefits . . .

McBRIDE, v. PRATT WHITNEY USA,, 909 So. 2d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . period set forth in this section unless the petition meets the specificity requirements set forth in s. 440.192 . . . dismissed his two previous petitions (which, he argues, met the specificity requirements of section 440.192 . . . statute, to the effect that filing a petition meeting the specificity requirements set forth in section 440.192 . . . merely states that a petition must be filed in compliance with the specificity requirements of section 440.192 . . .

AGUILERA, v. INSERVICES, INC., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005)

. . . And section 440.192, Florida Statutes (2000), provides a procedure for resolving any benefit disputes . . . Further, section 440.192, Florida Statutes (2000), provides a procedure for resolving any benefit disputes . . . for mediation and hearings that are available after a petition for benefits is filed under section 440.192 . . .

CAGNOLI, v. TANDEM STAFFING, 888 So. 2d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . workers’ compensation benefits for failing to include a social security number as required by section 440.192 . . . The exception provided in section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Privacy Act would not apply to section 440.192, Florida . . . Statutes, requiring injured workers to list their social security number, because section 440.192 was . . .

MORRIS, v. DOLLAR TREE STORE, 869 So. 2d 704 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . within the fee assessed the lawyer’s pre-petition time, concluding that the plain language of section 440.192 . . . Section 440.192(7) states: Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 440.34, a judge of compensation claims . . . relating to the factors to be considered in awarding claimant’s attorney fees, and those in section 440.192 . . . Section 440.192(2) clearly states that a petition shall be dismissed if it fails to comply with its filing . . . We therefore reverse the JCC’s construction of section 440.192(7) as barring all attorney time expended . . .

BUSSEY, v. WAL- MART STORE, 867 So. 2d 542 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . asked to decide whether failure of an employer/carrier (E/C) to respond within 134 days to a section 440.192 . . . Resolution of the issue requires a review of this court’s previous decisions construing section 440.192 . . . Section 440.192 outlines the procedure for resolving benefit disputes. . . . . § 440.192(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . We analyzed the interrelationship between section 440.192(8) and section 440:20(4). . . . The clearly expressed language of sections 440.192(8) and 440.20(4), Florida Statutes (2001), when considered . . .

WHEELED COACH INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ANNULIS,, 852 So. 2d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Acceptance of payments did not constitute a petition for benefits, as defined in section 440.192, Florida . . .

BEGYN, v. STATE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, 849 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 440.192(3), Fla. . . .

W. STERLING, v. SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD USIS,, 847 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . appellant had not exhausted the grievance procedures before filing the petition, as required by section 440.192 . . . petitions seeking remedial, as opposed to palliative, care for the purpose of complying with section 440.192 . . .

INSERVICES, INC. f k a USA a v. AGUILERA,, 837 So. 2d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Further, section 440.192, Florida Statutes (2000), provides a procedure for resolving any benefit disputes . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE, 829 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2002)

. . . A petition shall meet the specificity requirements of sections 440.192(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, . . . If the issues raised in the petition do not meet the requirements of sections 440.192(2)-(4), Florida . . . If the petition does not meet the requirements — of- sections — 440.192(2)-(4), Florida Statute»;- and . . . The docketing judge’s ruling on specificity under section 440.192, Florida Statutes, or on the issue . . . Subject to the time limitations of section 440.192(5), Florida Statutes, a motion to dismiss for lack . . .

C. CLEMENTS, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY, 819 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . encompass applications for surgery, unless included within a petition for benefits, as provided by section 440.192 . . . As applied to the facts before us, the provisions of section 440.192(8) are controlling. . . . 2000, clearly complied with the 120-day provisions of section 440.20(4), as incorporated in section 440.192 . . .

FOSTER, v. E G G FLORIDA, INC., 795 So. 2d 151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . 440.191 (requiring that a request for assistance be filed before a petition for benefits is filed) and 440.192 . . .

DENESTAN, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 789 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . appellee-employer’s [hereafter E/C] failure to file a notice of denial within 14 days, as required by section 440.192 . . . There this court explained that under section 440.192, Florida Statutes, an E/C must, within 14 days, . . .

SMURFIT- STONE CONTAINER CORP. RSKCO, v. TAYLOR,, 786 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . 440.191 (requiring that a request for assistance be filed before a petition for benefits is filed) and 440.192 . . . does the motion for emergency medical conference meet the pleading requirements laid down by section 440.192 . . . The employer also argues that an award of fees is precluded by section 440.192(7), Florida Statutes ( . . . But, as written, section 440.192(7), Florida Statutes (1997), does not bar the award of attorney’s fees . . . Section 440.25 begins: "Within 21 days after a petition for benefits is filed under s. 440.192.” . . . Emergency Conference, pursuant to section 440.25(4)(h), satisfied any pleading requirements under section 440.192 . . .

FRANKLIN, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, 778 So. 2d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . . § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

CASTRO, v. AT T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., 780 So. 2d 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 440.192(3). “A JCC has no jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute.” . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE, 795 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2000)

. . . This rule defines the types of claims not included in a petition for benefits filed under section 440.192 . . . If a petition filed in accordance with section 440.192, Florida Statutes, involves a claim or petition . . . In accordance with section 440.192(1-) — Florida Statutes, a copy of. . . . Managed care grievance procedures, if required, have been exhausted under Section 440.192(3), Florida . . . In accordance with Section 440.192(1), Florida Statutes, a copy of this petition for benefits has been . . .

BYNUM TRANSPORT, INC. v. SNYDER,, 765 So. 2d 752 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . response to a petition for benefits operates as a denial of every allegation therein under section 440.192 . . .

EASTERN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BURNHAM,, 750 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . file a notice of denial within 14 days of the filing of the petition for benefits, pursuant to section 440.192 . . .

VILCHES, v. CITY OF DUNEDIN, 738 So. 2d 990 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Claimant’s attorney, therefore, filed a “Petition for Benefits,” in accordance with section 440.192, . . .

McDONALD S RESTAURANT s v. MONTES,, 736 So. 2d 768 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Under section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes (1995), a carrier that fails to respond to a claimant’s petition . . .

ITT HARTFORD, a v. A. CLEARY,, 737 So. 2d 567 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . and thus it has been unnecessary for Robin Cleary to file a petition for benefits pursuant to section 440.192 . . . jurisdiction is confined to proceedings after a petition for benefits has been filed pursuant to section 440.192 . . . jurisdiction upon the JCC to order an IME prior to the filing of a petition for benefits under section 440.192 . . . Nowhere does the court confine the JCC’s jurisdiction to section 440.192. . . .

ALLEN, v. TYRONE SQUARE AMC THEATERS, 731 So. 2d 699 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . However, § 440.192(8) provides that a carrier, within fourteen days after receipt of a Petition for Benefits . . . Allen duly pursued his remedies under sections 440.191 and 440.192, Florida Statutes (1997), seeking . . .

VOLUSIA COUNTY FIRE SERVICES v. EABY,, 725 So. 2d 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . attorney’s fees to the claimant, Alan Eaby, appellee, on the authority of sections 440.34(3)(b) and 440.192 . . . Claimant moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 440.34(3)(b) and 440.192(8). . . . November 13, 1996, and, having denied a claim, the employer/carrier was therefore obligated under section 440.192 . . . No authority has been cited to support fees here, and we do not read section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes . . .

COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORP. v. LaPOINTE,, 723 So. 2d 912 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Permanent Wage-Loss Benefits Sections 440.191 and 440.192, Florida Statutes (1995), contemplate that . . .

INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES v. HYDE,, 721 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). . . . See § 440.192(8), Fla. Stat. Therefore, the claim was never controverted. REVERSED. . . .

LAKESIDE BAPTIST CHURCH v. JONES,, 714 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 440.192(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), states in material part that a petition for workers . . . See § 440.192(8) Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). . . .

CLAIRSON INTERNATIONAL v. ROSE,, 718 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The claimant should have followed the procedures set forth in sections 440.191 and 440.192, if necessary . . .

KENNEDY, v. ORLANDO SHADER REALTY, 711 So. 2d 156 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . claimant argues that the JCC erred (i) in dismissing her petition for benefits pursuant to section 440.192 . . . accepted claimant as permanently and totally disabled all within the 14-day period provided by section 440.192 . . . for benefits because the petition clearly failed to comply with the filing requirements of section 440.192 . . . Sections 440.192(2) and (4) set forth basic information which the petition must identify or contain oh . . . The cases on which claimant relies interpreted statutory provisions unlike section 440.192 before us . . .

SORIANO, v. GOLD COAST AERIAL LIFT, INC., 705 So. 2d 636 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . concluded that claimant’s petition for benefits seeking authorization for such was not ripe under section 440.192 . . .

POUTRE, v. BEE GEE SHRIMP, S, 704 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The third amended petition complied fully with the requirements of section 440.192(2), Florida Statutes . . .

ALACHUA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. STARLING,, 699 So. 2d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . and taxable costs, because the employer/servicing agent did not comply with the provisions of section 440.192 . . .

WIGGINS, v. B L SERVICES, INC., 701 So. 2d 570 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . the grievance procedures required by 440.134(15) were exhausted before the petition was filed under 440.192 . . .

RUSSELL CORPORATION GAB v. A. BROOKS,, 698 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Hutchinson, 673 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 683 So.2d 486 (Fla.1996), we interpreted section 440.192 . . . I must admit that this construction of section 440.192(8) was not apparent to me when I concurred with . . . that necessary to its decision when it indicated that the “deemed-compensable” provisions of sections 440.192 . . . I considered that the deemer language in sections 440.192(8) and 440.20(4), when construed in pari materia . . . The explicitly stated legislative goals leading to the creation of sections 440.192(8) and 440.20(4), . . . denial with the division in response to a petition for benefits sent by certified mail violated section 440.192 . . .

LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. J. MURPHY,, 695 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . The claimant should have followed the procedures set forth in sections 440.191 and 440.192, if necessary . . .

NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, c o M. F. v. WUELLING,, 683 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . petition for benefits was not barred by the statute of limitations, based on application of section 440.192 . . . In the challenged order, the judge of compensation claims found that section 440.192(8) is procedural . . . The JCC ruled that in the instant case, the “procedural default” aspects of section 440.192(8) “act to . . . Disposition of this case turns on the construction of the third sentence in section 440.192(8), which . . . We find that the third sentence of section 440.192(8) does not apply in this case. . . .

GARCIA, v. NEW INDUSTRIAL TECHNIQUES, 678 So. 2d 467 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . 440.191(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of section 440.192 . . .

MAYS, v. PACKERS, 677 So. 2d 992 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . relating to the information required in a claim, were substantially revised by the creation of section 440.192 . . .

DAYCO PRODUCTS v. L. RUE,, 676 So. 2d 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . file a petition which must on its face specifically identify or itemize the matters set out in section 440.192 . . . a petition for benefits in which to assume its defensive position or pay the requested benefits. § 440.192 . . .

SPENCE, v. TRADER PUBLISHING COMPANY, 675 So. 2d 974 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Spence now argues that under section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), compensability of her . . . The JCC ruled that although section 440.192(8) is procedural, appellant was not prejudiced by the employer . . . Hutchinson, 673 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), we considered and rejected an argument that section 440.192 . . . compensation ‘is deemed to have accepted the employee’s injuries as compensable’ ” under subsection 440.192 . . . and REMAND with directions that Brenda Spence’s claim be deemed compensable by operation of section 440.192 . . .

REGENCY KAWASAKI SEA DOO, INC. FESA, v. H. SHEPPARD,, 674 So. 2d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . As the JCC properly concluded that section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), is procedural and . . . The JCC struck the defense as untimely, pursuant to section 440.192(8), which requires the E/C to either . . . Section 440.192 took effect on January 1, 1994. Ch. 93-415, §§ 25 & 112, at 137 & 215, Laws of Fla. . . . In so concluding, we observed that section 440.192(8) “merely alters the process by which the judge of . . . Section 440.192(8) provides: Within 14 days after receipt of a petition for benefits by certified mail . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE, 674 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1996)

. . . to exhaust all managed care grievance procedures before filing a petition for benefits under section 440.192 . . . A petition shall meet the specificity requirements of sections 440.192(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, . . . If the issues raised in the petition do not meet the requirements of sections 440.192(2)-(4), Florida . . . The docketing judge’s ruling on specificity under section 440.192, Florida Statutes, or on the issue . . . Subject to the time limitations of section 440.192(5), Florida Statutes, a motion to dismiss for lack . . .

WAFFLE HOUSE O v. HUTCHINSON,, 673 So. 2d 883 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . judge of compensation claims ruling Lecia Hutchinson’s claim compensable by operation of subsection 440.192 . . . Waffle House argues that subsection 440.192(8) is a substantive enactment and the judge therefore erred . . . Subsection 440.192(8) provides as follows: (8) Within 14 days after receipt of a petition for benefits . . . Subsection 440.192(8) does not impact the substantive rights of the parties or alter their statutory . . . Waffle House failed to show that it complied with the provisions of subsection 440.192(8) and therefore . . . Now faced with the task of directly construing the inartfully drawn section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes . . .

R. SANCHEZ, v. ACAPULCO PLASTERS STUCCO, 668 So. 2d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . procedures set forth in the newly enacted section 440.191, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and section 440.192 . . . To hold otherwise would effectively shorten the statute because a section 440.192 petition may not be . . .

DIESTEL, v. WINFREY PLUMBING, INC., 668 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . because he failed to exhaust the Employer’s managed care grievance procedure as required by section 440.192 . . . Diestel supports his petition for writ of certiorari on his contention that section 440.192(3) is unconstitutional . . . Section 440.192(3) provides in part that “[i]f the employer has elected to satisfy its obligation to . . . Diestel had not exhausted the grievance procedure prior to filing his petition as mandated by section 440.192 . . . Diestel “to satisfy the managed care grievance procedures and follow the guidelines set forth in Section 440.192 . . .

KARELL, v. MIAMI AIRPORT HILTON MIAMI HILTON CORPORATION,, 668 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . jurisdiction upon the JCC to order an IME prior to the filing of a petition for benefits under section 440.192 . . .

SABAL TRANSPORT v. D. BROOKS,, 666 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Furthermore, section 440.192(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), contemplates the review of every petition . . .

KIMMINS CORPORATION v. COLLIER,, 664 So. 2d 299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . authorization of an IME physician through the statutory ombudsman procedures set forth in section 440.191 and 440.192 . . .

WRIGHT, v. INDUSTRIAL AUTOMOTIVE F. A. W. A., 662 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . On November 28,1994, the claimant filed a Petition for Benefits pursuant to section 440.192, Florida . . . section 440.19, Florida Statutes and the post-1994 amendment “Petition for Benefits” under section 440.192 . . . Statutes (1993) should properly be construed as the filing of a Petition for Benefits under section 440.192 . . .

BAPTIST MANOR NURSING HOME v. MADISON,, 658 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . noncompliance with the procedural provisions of section 440.191, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and section 440.192 . . . claimant’s petition, without prejudice, based upon failure to meet the specificity requirements of section 440.192 . . . certificate indicating that a good faith effort had been made to resolve the dispute as required by section 440.192 . . .

CITY OF CRESTVIEW Co. v. D. HOWARD,, 657 So. 2d 73 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that claimant’s attorney is entitled to a fee under section 440.192 . . . Rather, the JCC should look to section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994): Within 14 days after . . . The legislature also enacted section 440.192(8), set out above, requiring payment of benefits within . . . the issue of compensability that could not have been discovered in the reasonable investigation-” § 440.192 . . . The JCC erred by finding section 440.192(8), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), controlling as to attorney . . .

BURDICK, v. BOB S SPACE RACERS, 659 So. 2d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . The Appellant filed a petition for benefits pursuant to section 440.192(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994 . . . Lazzara dismissed without prejudice the petition for failure to comply with section 440.192(2)(b), (d . . . Following a hearing, Judge Hoch found that the petition complied with sections 440.192(2)(b) and (d) . . . but failed to comply with section 440.192(2)(i). . . . Section 440.192(2)(i), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994) (emphasis supplied). . . .

ALCOMA PACKING CO. v. COWAN,, 659 So. 2d 345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . alternate ground that the e/c failed to move for dismissal within thirty days as required by section 440.192 . . .