HAROLD P. JACOBSEN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF BETTY JEAN JACOBSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSS STORES AND SEDGWICK CLAIMS, ETC., APPELLEES
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 2000 amendments to Florida's workers' compensation settlement statute did not eliminate the Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) jurisdiction to determine whether a settlement agreement was reached or to enforce it. The amendments only removed the requirement for JCC approval of the settlement itself (except for attorney's fees), but preserved the JCC's traditional authority to construe and give effect to settlement agreements.
The 2000 amendments did not eliminate the JCC's jurisdiction. The plain language of the statute simply removed the requirement for JCC approval of lump sum settlements (except as to attorney's fees) but did not divest the JCC of her previously existing authority to determine whether a binding settlement was reached or to give effect to settlement agreements.
[1] Amendments to section 440.20(ll)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), did not eliminate the Judge of Compensation Claims' jurisdiction to construe or enforce settlement agreement…
[2] A Judge of Compensation Claims has jurisdiction to determine whether a settlement agreement was reached.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“settlement agreement requires approval by the [JCC] only as to the attorney's fees paid to the claimant's attorney by the claimant. The parties need not submit any information or documentation in support of the settlement, except as needed to justify the amount of the attorney's fees”
Establishes the limited scope of JCC approval required under amended statute—only attorney's fees, not the settlement itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBetty Jean Jacobsen and Ross Stores/Sedgwick Claims Management Services entered into a written washout settlement agreement through mediation that pur…
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 Settlement Agreement Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
The issue before us is whether the amendments to section 440.20(ll)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), adopted by the 2000 legislature, eliminated the previously existing jurisdiction of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) to construe or enforce settlement agreements, or to determine whether a settlement was reached. We conclude the amendments did not alter the JCC’s jurisdiction and reverse.
Betty Jean Jacobsen (Claimant) and Ap-pellees, Ross Stores and Sedgwick Claims Management Services (E/C), through mediation, entered a written, signed washout settlement agreement pursuant to section 440.20(1l)(c),(d), and (e), Florida Statutes (2001). The mediation report indicated the settlement agreement completely resolved all issues.
Before payout of the settlement, Claimant died and Harold Jacobsen (Appellant), personal representative of Claimant’s estate, filed a notice of substitution of parties and a motion to compel enforcement of the settlement agreement. Following a hearing on Appellant’s motion to compel, the JCC entered an Order concluding that, pursuant to section 440.20(ll)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), she lacked jurisdiction to either determine whether a washout settlement agreement was reached, or to enforce such an agreement. This appeal followed.
Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Seven Hills, Inc. v. Bentley, 848 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see generally Klonis v. Dep’t of Revenue, 766 So. 2d 1186, 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
A claimant represented by counsel may enter a lump sum settlement agreement. See § 440.20(ll)(c), Fla. Stat.
However, pursuant to the year 2000 amendments to section 440.20(ll)(c), such “settlement agreement requires approval by the [JCC] only as to the attorney’s fees paid to the claimant’s attorney by the claimant. The parties need not submit any information or documentation in support of the settlement, except as needed to justify the amount of the attorney’s fees.... ” Id. (emphasis added).
The plain language of this statute does not extinguish the JCC’s previously existing jurisdiction to determine whether a settlement agreement was entered, or to construe, or give effect to settlement agreements. Rather, except for the amount of attorney’s fees, it simply permits parties represented by counsel to enter lump sum settlement agreements without obtaining the JCC’s approval of the settlement actually reached.
A JCC’s jurisdiction relating to settlement agreements is well-settled. Construction of a settlement agreement is “a matter clearly within the province of the JCC.” Czopek v. Great Chemicals & GAB, 778 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
The JCC has authority to determine whether a valid, binding settlement agreement was reached, and if so, to give effect to the settlement agreement. 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 to parties’ settlement agreement; on remand, JCC directed to assess parties’ contrary interpretations of settlement provision).
Where terms of a washout settlement conflict with other terms in the settlement, a patent ambiguity is created, the resolution of which is a question of fact requiring the JCC to determine the intended scope of the settlement. See Barefoot v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 650 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
The JCC erred by concluding the amendments to section 440.11(c), Florida Statutes, divested her of the subject matter jurisdiction long held by JCCs to determine whether the parties entered a binding settlement agreement, or to enter an order giving effect to that agreement. Accordingly, the JCC’s order is REVERSED.
ERVIN and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…does not deny. The trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA. Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Jacobsen v. Ross Stores, 882 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).1 We hold, under the narrow facts [*193] of this case, that the trial court incorrectly applied the UCCJEA in dismissing Sanchez’s paternity case. Where, as in the instant case, the putative father agrees that the mother sho…
-
Ferreira v. Home Depot/Sedgwick CMS, 12 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ent agreement was reached and, if so, to establish its terms. See Chubb Group Ins. Co. v. Easthagen, 889 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The JCC has authority to [*868] give effect to the terms of a settlement agreement. See Jacobsen v. Ross Stores, 882 So. 2d 431, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). A JCC has jurisdiction to determine whether a party complied with the terms of a settlement agreement. See McCallum v. Palm Beach County Sch. Dish, 969 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding where settlement resolved all c…
-
Tammy Gunderson for The Estate of Alan Gunderson v. Sch. Dist. OF Hillsborough Cnty. & Broadspire fka CNA Claims Plus, 937 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…rform. More importantly, the death of a claimant following the execution of a settlement agreement will not affect the agreement’s enforcement if the personal representative can show that a binding contract was reached. See Jacobsen v. Ross Stores, 882 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, a binding contract was reached at the entry of the trial court’s order approving attorney’s fees. In addition, the claimant’s widow’s general release serves to alleviate all fears of further litigation where she, as the re…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seven Hills, Inc. v. Bentley, 848 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Nicholas v. Klonis, 766 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Czopek v. Great Chems. & GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 778 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Frix v. ALL State Ins. & ITT Specialty Risk, 854 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Barefoot v. Sears Roebuck & Co. & Allstate Commercial Ins. Co., 650 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Borges v. State, 814 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Dominguez v. Cruise Holdings, 814 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)