HOWARD JOHNSONS & LIBERTY, MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSE PINEDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the parties were bound by their stipulation regarding the rate of attendant care benefits, and thus the judge of compensation claims did not err.
The employer/carrier appealed an order directing payment of attendant care benefits to the claimant's wife. The parties had stipulated that the judge …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judge of Compensation Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The employer/carrier (E/C) appeals an order directing the E/C to pay attendant care benefits to the claimant’s wife at the rate of $6.00 per hour for eight hours per day, seven days per week. It argues that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred by refusing to apply the provisions of Section 440.13(2)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), in determining the monetary rate for nonprofessional attendant care provided by the claimant’s spouse. We affirm.
The parties stipulated prior to the hearing that the JCC could make an award of attendant care based upon prior testimony that he had heard in other cases regarding the reasonable value of similar services provided by family members. The rule is clear that a stipulation should not be ignored or set aside in the absence of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of the facts by an adversary, or some element as would render the agreement void. See Steele v. A.D.H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 174 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1965); Espada Enters, v. Spiro, 481 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA), cause dismissed, 491 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1986). Because we consider that the parties were bound by their stipulation, they cannot now be heard to complain that the JCC erred by setting the value of the services based upon prior testimony heard in other cases.1
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . Because our disposition of this case is grounded upon the parties’ stipulation, it is not necessary to reach the merits of the statutory argument. We do note, however, that but for the stipulation, the value of the attendant care services would be controlled by Section 440.-13(2)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988). See Mr. C’s. TV Rental v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leila Fawaz v. Florida Polymers and Fiesco, 622 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…dence clearly fails to disclose that the stipulations were the result of either fraud or a mistake of a material fact, the JCC was not authorized to relieve the employer from their binding effect. For a similar result, see Howard Johnsons v. Pineda, 560 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (parties bound by stipulation regarding pay rate for nonprofessional attendant care). As a result of our reversal of the JCC’s denial of Fawaz’s claims for benefits, which was based upon the Martin v. Carpenter defense,4 we turn…
-
Williams v. Kraft, Inc., 585 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…t a stipulation should not be ignored or set aside in the absence of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of the facts by an adversary or some element as would render the agreement void. See Howard Johnson’s v. Pineda, First District [560 So. 2d 336] ([Fla.App.] 1990) and cases cited therein. Since there has been no affirmative basis demonstrated to ignore or set aside the stipulation, I find that this stipulation of the parties is controlling. The claimant asserts that the JCC erred and shoul…1 / 2
-
Aguiar v. Doral Hotel & Country Club & Prof'l Administrators, 599 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e rule is clear that a stipulation should not be ignored or set aside in the absence of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of the facts by an adversary, or some element as would render the agreement void.” Howard Johnsons v. Pineda, 560 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). As there was no reason shown why the stipulation should be set aside, the JCC should have directed that the claimant’s TPD benefits be calculated based on the stipulated AWW of $678.29. Second, even if the stipulation were…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steele v. A. D. H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 174 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1965)
- MR. C's TV Rental & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Murray, 559 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Espada Enters., Inc. v. Spiro, 481 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)