GABRIELLE HEATHER FRIX, APPELLANT,
v.
ALL STATE INSURANCE AND ITT SPECIALTY RISK, ETC., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2003-09-12
No. 1D02-2771
Benton, J., Padovano, J., Browning, J.
854 So. 2d 258 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed the denial of sanctions for late settlement payment under Florida workers' compensation law, holding that sanctions require a showing of willfulness, which the JCC found was absent here.


Holding

Sanctions for late payment of a workers' compensation settlement under section 440.20(11)(e) may be imposed only upon a showing of willfulness.


Headnotes

[1] Sanctions for late payment of a workers' compensation settlement under Fla. …

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought sanctions against Appellees for failing to pay a settlement within 14 days of the JCC's mailing of an order approving attorney's fees…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, because, as found by the JCC, the Appellees’ failure to make payment of a settlement reached under section 440.20(ll)(c), Florida Statutes, within 14 days of the JCC’s mailing of her order approving Appellant’s attorney’s fees was not willful. We write only to dispel the misconception that sanctions in such case can be imposed on a non-fault basis under section 440.20(ll)(c), and to dispel any doubt pertaining to a JCC’s authority or jurisdiction to impose sanctions for late payment of settlements under such section for a willful violation. Under section 440.20(ll)(e), which requires that “[p]ayment of the lump sum settlement amount must be made within 14 days after the date the judge of compensation claims mails the order approving the attorney’s fees,” a JCC has the authority and jurisdiction to impose sanctions for a late payment of a settlement reached pursuant to such section. See Fla. R. Work. Comp. P. 4.150. However, sanctions under this rule can be implemented only upon a showing of willfulness. Winn Dixie Stores v. Lang, 673 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Horizon Healthcare v. Murphy, 660 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Hanna v. Indus. Labor Serv., Inc., 636 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Here, the JCC, as an alternate basis for denial of Appellant’s motion for sanctions, found that Appellees’ failure to make timely payment was not willful. Appellant has failed to show the JCC abused her discretion by this factual determination, which impels an affirmance.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jacobsen v. Ross Stores & Sedgwick Claims, 882 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
    …greement. See id. (noting that, after a hearing, the JCC entered an order finding claimant had voluntarily entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement which was within JCC’s jurisdiction to construe); see also Frix v. All State Ins. & ITT, 854 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding JCC has authority and jurisdiction to impose sanctions for late payment of a settlement between the parties); Dominguez v. Cruise Holdings, 814 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding JCC erred by failing to give effect…
  • Amerimark, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 882 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
    …that certain compensation benefits would be paid within 14 days after the agreement was approved.1 Because the judge of compensation claims (JCC) failed to decide whether the untimely payment was willful, as required by Frix v. All State Insurance, 854 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), we reverse the order of sanctions and remand the case with directions that further proceedings be conducted for such purpose. [*1115] The JCC approved the parties’ stipulation on March 25, 2003, and the E/C mailed the payment to…
    1 / 2
  • Valerio v. LEE Mem'l Health Sys., 858 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
    …counsel when the release was executed. A washout settlement does not inevitably terminate either proceedings before the judge of compensation claims or our jurisdiction to review orders entered post-settlement. See generally Friz v. All State Ins., 854 So. 2d 258, 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“dispel[ling] any doubt pertaining to a JCC’s authority or jurisdiction to impose sanctions for late payment of settlements under” section 440.20(ll)(c)); Levine, Busch, Schnepper & Stein, P.A. v. Pool Piling Enters., 847 S…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw