In this wоrkers’ compensation case, claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying her claims for benefits, entered on the ground that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons indicated below, we reverse.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 13, claimant suffered a compensable injury while working as a referee at the employer’s intramural fields. Claimant’s right eye was injured when a football struck her face аnd shattered her eyeglasses. Following the injury, claimant lost vision in her right eye and was sent to Baptist Hospital for evaluation. Claimant was diagnosed with retinal detachment and referred to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (Bascоm Palmer) for immediate surgery. Claimant underwent surgery of her right eye on September 19, 2005, and received authorized follow-up treatment from Bascom Palmer thereafter. Claimant attended appointments at Bascom Palmer every other month until June 2007, when she was instructed to return for only annual visits. Claimant’s last authorized appointment with Bascom Palmer occurred *223 June 21, 2007. In July 2008, claimant scheduled her annual appointment with Bascom Palmer for August 5, 2008.
During the cоurse of claimant’s treatment, the employer/carrier (E/C) made at least two attempts to obtain a date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and a permanent impairment rating (PIR) from the treating physicians at Bascom Palmer. The E/C’s nurse case manager testified that she requested the provider complete DWC-25 forms concerning claimant’s treatment. Bascom Palmer, however, failed to complete the forms or provide the rеquested information. Medical evidence later adduced demonstrated claimant reached MMI with some permanent impairment on or before June 21, 2007. Claimant suffered a significant loss of vision in her right eye and, although the еxpert medical testimony differed as to claimant’s precise PIR, all medical experts agree claimant suffered a permanent impairment to some extent as a result of the compensable injury.
When claimаnt attempted to return to Bascom Palmer for her annual visit in August 2008, the E/C refused to authorize any further treatment because it determined the statute of limitations had expired on claimant’s claim. Consequently, on August 19, 2008, claimant filed a petition for benefits (PFB) seeking impairment benefits in addition to other various medical and indemnity benefits available under the workers’ compensation law. The E/C defended by asserting claimant failed to prosecute her claim within the statutory period.
In her pretrial compliance and at a hearing before the JCC, claimant argued the E/C should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense. Claimant advanced multiple theoriеs of estoppel, including the E/C’s failure to obtain a date of MMI and a PIR from claimant’s authorized physicians. In her pretrial memorandum, claimant argued, inter alia, that the E/C made little or no effort to require the authorized physicians to complete DWC-25 forms and never pursued a date of MMI or a PIR despite its knowledge of claimant’s severe ocular injury. Consequently, claimant argued, the E/C avoided payment of permanent impairment benеfits which, if paid, would have tolled the statute of limitations. In response, the E/C argued it should not be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations, because it made no misstatement or misrepresentation to claimant concerning her treatment.
The JCC rejected each of claimant’s es-toppel arguments, finding “the E/C did nothing to either impede or mislead claimant regarding her obligation to obtain timely treatment with Bascom Palmer.” The JCC, focusing оn claimant’s other theories of estoppel (none of which we today find meritorious), denied claimant’s argument concerning MMI without elaboration, and determined generally that claimant failed to demonstrate estoppel by clear and convincing evidence. The JCC therefore denied claimant’s requests for benefits.
On appeal, claimant argues the JCC erred in finding the E/C was not estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defеnse. We base our analysis upon the E/C’s failure to obtain an MMI date and impairment rating.
ANALYSIS
Claimant’s petition was untimely under section 440.19, Florida Statutes (2005), because her claim was made more than two years after her injury and more than one year after her last receipt of benefits. Section 440.19(4), however, provides than an E/C may be estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense. Because the E/C complied with the notice requirements of sections 440.185 and 440.055, Florida Statutes (2005), claimant *224 can demonstrate estoppel only by proof that is clear and convincing. See § 440.19(4), Fla. Stat. (2005).
Despite a score of years’ worth of refinements and revisions, the Workers’ Compensation Act remains, in its day-today operations, fundamentally an employer/carrier-monitored system.
See Ace Disposal v. Holley,
Pursuant to section 440.15(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), once an employee reaches MMI, impairment benefits are due and pаyable within fourteen days after the carrier has knowledge of the impairment. If an employee has not been certified as having reached MMI before the expiration of ninety-eight weeks after the date temporary disability benefits begin to accrue, the E/C is obligated to notify the treating doctor of its obligation to certify a date of MMI and an impairment rating. § 440.15(3)(d)(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). An employer has the option, if necessary, of obtaining a date of MMI and a PIR from a doctor other than the employee’s treating physician. See § 440.15(3)(d), Fla. Stat. Additionally, at the time of authorization for medical services or at the time a reimbursement request is received, an insurer is required to notify each health care provider, in writing, of additional form completion requirements or supporting documentation that are necessary for reimbursement determinations. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-7.602(5)(b) (2005).
Claimant argues that the duty to obtain a date of MMI and a PIR from authorized medical providers belongs to E/Cs and that this E/C abandoned that duty by excusing or overlooking the failure of its chosen medical provider to provide legally required information that would have advised E/C of a PIR and alerted it that benefits were due and owing as early as June 2007. We agree. To hold otherwise would permit E/Cs “to' shirk their responsibilities and obligations to notify claimant[s] of possible benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Wood,
In view of our employer-monitored system, we reject the E/C’s аrgument that claimant was in an equally adequate position to determine the severity of her injury and eligibility for impairment benefits by exercising her right to an independent medical exam.
See Barnes,
We agree with claimant that the E/C is estopped from relying on a statute of limitations defense because claimant showed by uncontested evidence that the E/C failed to act when it was under a duty to do so and that claimant was misled to her detriment due to the E/C’s omission.
See Larry K. Meyer, P.A. v. Kimberly,
Here, as in Roberson, claimant’s failure to file a PFB was due to the E/C’s failure to convey accurate information concerning claimant’s PIR. Were we to conclude otherwise, we would be shelving any notion of an employer-monitored system and would, in essence, be endorsing an approach inconsistent with Florida’s current philosophy to reduce attorney involvement, and keep the collateral costs of the workers’ compensation scheme more manageable. The E/C argues this case is distinguishable from Roberson and other misreрresentation cases because it was not aware claimant reached MMI and did not receive a PIR from the physicians at Bascom Palmer. We decline to accept this contention, because the E/C would have garnered the information had it required authorized physicians to complete the necessary forms or obtained certification from an alternative physician. See § 440.15(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). Although we do not go so far as to endorse claimant’s graphic description of a “wall of willful ignorance,” neither are we moved by E/C’s protestations concerning the difficulty of procuring timely and complete MMI information from providers within the managed care group. Indeed, we perceive a mandatory statutory obligation, in the sole province of the E/C; accordingly, the E/C cannot benefit by its failure to undertake that obligation.
For these reasons, the JCC’s order is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.