FL Case Law Summaries – 7/5/16
BY:
To receive daily e-mails with case law summaries, e-mail: Esantos@eraclides.com
JCC ORDERS
Frances M. DeRosa v. TJX Companies dba HomeGoods and Zurich American Insurance Company
JCC Rosen; St. Petersburg District; Order Date: July 1, 2016
OJCC Case: 15-028571SLR; D/A: November 10, 2015
Claimant’s Counsel: Donald J. Magee
Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Melissa A. Volk.
Briefly: Misrepresentation Defense – JCC Rosen denied the misrepresentation defense and ordered that the Employer/Carrier to pay medical benefits. The JCC accepted the testimony of the claimant as unequivocal over that that of the two Employer witnesses who testified the accident did not occur and could not have occurred the way the claimant described.
Summary: The Employer/Carrier argued that, although the claimant was in the course and scope of her employment on the date of accident, the accident as alleged by the claimant did not occur.
In accepting the testimony of the claimant over that of the Employer witnesses, the Judge of Compensation claims found that the testimony of both Employer witnesses changed as to sight lines, time frames, position of the witnesses and other coworkers at the time of the accident, and who they discussed the incident with. The JCC found that it was obvious that neither of the Employer witnesses were overly concerned with the incident and both testified that it happened “a long time ago”.
On the other hand, the JCC found the testimony of the claimant was unequivocal in the timeframes leading up to the incident and what the claimant did after the incident. The JCC accepted the claimant’s testimony that the Assistant Manager referred her to the hospital and gave her the proper documentation from the Employer to show that the facility was a Workers’ Compensation related injury.
Thomas Catalano v. Joey D’s Italian Restaurant/Markel Insurance Company
JCC Weiss; Ft. Myers District; Order Date: June 30, 2016
OJCC Case: 16-002271KAS; D/A: 10/21/2015
Claimant’s Counsel: Blake J. Lange
Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Maria Freisen
Briefly: Motion to Enforce Settlement – JCC Weiss denied the Employer/Carrier’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and found that claimant’s counsel did not have clear and unequivocal authority to settle from the claimant.
Summary: The JCC noted that settlement agreements are highly favored and must be enforced whenever possible. However, for a settlement agreement to be valid and enforceable against the claimant, his counsel must have clear and unequivocal authority from the claimant to settle the claim, Five Coat v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 928 So.2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Based upon the testimony of the claimant and his counsel, the JCC found that claimant’s counsel did not have clear and unequivocal authority to settle from the claimant. The JCC accepted the claimant’s testimony that he did not understand a verbal “okay” to settle was sufficient. The JCC found that the claimant believed he would have additional time to consider settling his claim once he had the opportunity to review the settlement documents, with the settlement not being binding until he signed those documents.
Cecil Hunter v. Linde North America, Inc./Gallagher Bassett Services
JCC Anderson; Daytona Beach District; Order Date: July 1, 2016
OJCC Case:15-029734WWA ; D/A: 9/16/2015
Claimant’s Counsel: Sean P. McCormack
Employer/Carrier’s Counsel: Sharon W. Hendon
Briefly: Motion to Enforce Settlement – JCC Anderson granted the Employer/Carrier’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and rejected the claimant’s uncorroborated testimony that the medications he was taking at the time he agreed to the settlement prevented him from making a competent decision to settle.
Summary: The claimant testified that the medications that he was taking when he agreed to the settlement prevented him from making a competent decision to settle. The JCC noted that no other evidence was presented indicating that the medications rendered the claimant incompetent to enter into a contract or affected his judgement in any way. Without additional expert or lay testimony supporting the claimant’s uncorroborated testimony, the JCC rejected the claimant’s testimony and entered an order requiring the parties to execute the appropriate settlement documents.