Santana v. American Airlines

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Santana v. American Airlines

11 So. 3d 1008, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9099, 2009 WL 1940746

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 2009

DocketNos. 1D08-5500, 1D08-5502, 1D08-5805

StatusPublished

This text of 11 So. 3d 1008 (Santana v. American Airlines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Santana v. American Airlines, 11 So. 3d 1008, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9099, 2009 WL 1940746 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claimant asserts the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred by ordering her to execute and submit completed settlement documents. The parties in a workers’ compensation case may reach “a valid, binding oral settlement,” but the record must contain some evidence of the terms of the agreement. See Bonagura v. Home Depot, 991 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Here, the JCC based his orders granting Appellees’ motion to enforce settlement entirely upon an unsworn motion filed by the Employer/Carrier. This does not constitute competent substantial evidence. See O’Connor v. Hillsborough County Sec. Svcs./Cambridge Integrated Servs. GRP Employer, 954 So.2d 649, 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Hale v. Shear Express, Inc., 946 So.2d 94, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, the JCC’s orders are REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the JCC for further proceedings. See Bonagura, 991 So.2d at 905.

BARFIELD, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Claimant asserts the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred by ordering her to execute and submit completed settlement documents. The parties in a workers’ compensation case may reach “a valid, binding oral settlement,” but the record must contain some evidence of the terms of the agreement. See Bonagura v. Home Depot, 991 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Here, the JCC based his orders granting Appellees’ motion to enforce settlement entirely upon an unsworn motion filed by the Employer/Carrier. This does not constitute competent substantial evidence. See O’Connor v. Hillsborough County Sec. Svcs./Cambridge Integrated Servs. GRP Employer, 954 So.2d 649, 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Hale v. Shear Express, Inc., 946 So.2d 94, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, the JCC’s orders are REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the JCC for further proceedings. See Bonagura, 991 So.2d at 905.

BARFIELD, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 So. 3d 1008, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9099, 2009 WL 1940746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santana-v-american-airlines-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack