Taylor v. CVS & Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. CVS & Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

151 So. 3d 26, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17468, 2014 WL 5420690

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 2014

DocketNo. 1D14-2631

StatusPublished

This text of 151 So. 3d 26 (Taylor v. CVS & Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.) 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

Taylor v. CVS & Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., 151 So. 3d 26, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17468, 2014 WL 5420690 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant challenges an order entered by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granting the Employer/Carrier’s (E/C) motion to “enforce” a settlement agreement reached at mediation. Because Claimant failed to'preserve any error concerning the competency of the evidence, we affirm the JCC’s finding that Claimant knowingly and voluntarily settled all indemnity and medical benefits under chapter 440 for a lump-sum payment, which agreement was final and binding and requires the E/C to pay Claimant and her former attorney sums certain and requires Claimant, for her part, to execute an additional “general release/separation of employment.” The JCC did not err by giving effect to this agreement and concluding that the case had settled with finality and that under this agreement Claimant was required to sign an additional release and a separation of employment. The JCC, however, erred when she re-wrote the settlement terms to require Claimant to return additional signed settlement documentation as a condition precedent to receiving the settlement proceeds and by compelling Claimant to sign such additional documents — as the JCC was without authority to rewrite the parties’ agreement or compel specific performance of the agreement. Instead, the JCC’s authority was limited to determining whether the parties had entered into a settlement and entering an order, giving effect to that settlement. Accordingly, we modify the order on appeal by striking the fourth paragraph of the decretal por[27]*27tion of the order. The order, as modified, is AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant challenges an order entered by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granting the Employer/Carrier’s (E/C) motion to “enforce” a settlement agreement reached at mediation. Because Claimant failed to'preserve any error concerning the competency of the evidence, we affirm the JCC’s finding that Claimant knowingly and voluntarily settled all indemnity and medical benefits under chapter 440 for a lump-sum payment, which agreement was final and binding and requires the E/C to pay Claimant and her former attorney sums certain and requires Claimant, for her part, to execute an additional “general release/separation of employment.” The JCC did not err by giving effect to this agreement and concluding that the case had settled with finality and that under this agreement Claimant was required to sign an additional release and a separation of employment. The JCC, however, erred when she re-wrote the settlement terms to require Claimant to return additional signed settlement documentation as a condition precedent to receiving the settlement proceeds and by compelling Claimant to sign such additional documents — as the JCC was without authority to rewrite the parties’ agreement or compel specific performance of the agreement. Instead, the JCC’s authority was limited to determining whether the parties had entered into a settlement and entering an order, giving effect to that settlement. Accordingly, we modify the order on appeal by striking the fourth paragraph of the decretal por[27]*27tion of the order. The order, as modified, is AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 26, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17468, 2014 WL 5420690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-cvs-gallagher-bassett-services-inc-fladistctapp-2014.