Workers’ compensation — Permanent total disability — Jurisdiction — Judge of compensation claims erred in dismissing claim for permanent total disability benefits based on conclusion that she lacked jurisdiction — JCC had jurisdiction over case when first petition for benefits was filed because employer/carrier did not administratively accept claimant as PTD until a month later — E/c’s voluntary acceptance did not remove matter from JCC’s jurisdiction because JCC retained jurisdiction over costs, and because it was not clear whether claimant received benefits between the time e/c conceded claimant was entitled to such benefits and the date claimant lodged his claim

SILVESTRE ANDRES DOMINGUEZ, Appellant, v. SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC./PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, CENTERLINE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING SERVICE, INC./LION INSURANCE, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D19-1385. March 12, 2020. On appeal from an order of Judge of Compensation Claims. Margaret E. Sojourner, Judge. Date of Accident: April 19, 2017. Counsel: Cory J. Pollack, Fort Myers; and Bill McCabe of William J. McCabe, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant. Robert B. Bennett and Karen E. Ferguson of Bennett, Jacobs & Adams, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) dismissing Claimant’s claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. For the reasons below, we reverse.

Claimant was injured in April 2017. On September 7, 2018, he filed the first of two petitions for benefits (PFB) seeking PTD benefits. The Employer/Carrier (E/C) filed their first response to the PFB on October 4, 2018; therein, they stated, “The employer/carrier voluntarily accepts the injured worker as permanently totally disabled starting of August 21, 2018,” and agreed to pay “reasonable taxable cost associated with the filing of the petition.” The JCC concluded that she lacked jurisdiction.

But the JCC had jurisdiction over the case when the first PFB was filed, because the E/C did not administratively accept Claimant as PTD until October 4, 2018. The E/C’s voluntary acceptance did not remove the matter from the JCC’s jurisdiction because the JCC retained jurisdiction over costs, and because it was never clear that Claimant received any benefits between the date the E/C concedes Claimant was entitled to PTD benefits (August 21, 2018) and the date Claimant lodged his claim for PTD benefits (September 7, 2018).

Claimant’s counsel averred that the E/C had not paid those benefits and argued that Claimant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the matter. We agree and therefore REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. (WOLF and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., and DUNCAN, J. SCOTT, ASSOCIATE JUDGE, concur.)