ARACELY M. DIAZ-LLERENA, AS LIMITED GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF OCTAVIO P. LLERENA, APPELLANTS,
v.
SPILLIS, CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC. AND ONEBEACON INSURANCE GROUP, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, a claimant challenged the dismissal of his petitions for benefits based on a global settlement agreement. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the Judge of Compensation Claims should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the settlement agreement actually released the employer/carrier's liability for the claimed benefits.
The court held that the Judge of Compensation Claims erred in granting the motion to dismiss without first holding an evidentiary hearing to examine the settlement agreement's terms and determine whether those terms actually released the claimant's liability for the benefits claimed and whether the employer/carrier had complied with the agreement.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the terms of a settlement agreement and whether claims have been waived or released, rather…
[2] A settlement agreement entered into pursuant to section 440.20(11)(a), Florida Statutes, does not automatically release all liability under chapter 440 without an examina…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the court's holding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary despite the agreement's statutory authorization
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties entered into a global settlement agreement in a workers' compensation case, with the Judge of Compensation Claims having already approved …
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 Release Of Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granting the Employer/Carrier’s (E/C’s) motion to dismiss his petitions for benefits (PFBs), and dismissing those PFBs with prejudice. The premise of the motion to dismiss is that the parties entered into a “global” settlement agreement — one for which the JCC had already approved the attorney’s fees as required by section 440.20(1l)(c), Florida Statutes — and thus that the E/C’s liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law had been released. Claimant readily admitted the existence of an agreement— the PFBs specified the claims therein were “according to the terms of the stipulation for lump sum settlement,” and incorporated by attachment the agreement — but argued that the benefits claimed were due under the particular terms of this agreement, and the agreement had not yet released the E/C because the E/C had not satisfied all sums due under the agreement.
By all appearances, the JCC concluded that, as a matter of law, the agreement released the E/C from all liability under chapter 440 because (as the parties concede) the agreement was entered into pursuant to section 440.20(ll)(a), Florida Statutes. We conclude that the JCC should have held an evidentiary hearing and considered the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement to determine if the terms of the agreement, in fact, released all of *1087the E/C’s liability for the benefits now at issue. See McCallum v. Palm Beach County Sch. Dist., 969 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). On remand, the JCC shall review the terms of the agreement, and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Claimant has waived or released the claims now at issue and whether the E/C has complied with the terms of the agreement.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ROWE, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCALLUM v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist. & F.A. Richard & Assocs., 969 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)