Risco USA Corp. v. Alexander
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7547
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Claimant was represented by counsel about two to three months after February 2006 surgery arising from the compensable injury.
- Claimant had two periods of employment with the Employer.
- Claimant sustained a September 2, 2005 accident during the first employment period.
- On June 2, 2008, Claimant signed an Exit Interview & Separation of Employment Agreement.
- Claimant filed a petition for benefits on December 24, 2010.
- The Agreement released claims from the beginning of Claimant's employment to the date of the agreement, addressing the employment relationship with the Employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the separation agreement, with counsel, settle the workers’ compensation claim under §440.20(ll)(c)? | Claimant contends the represented settlement bars further benefits. | Employer/Carrier argues the release constitutes a valid settlement of the claim. | Yes; the agreement, by its terms, released the employment relationship and operated as a settlement. |
| What scope does the release cover—beginning of employment through date of agreement or only the second period? | Claimant argues the release must cover all employment periods. | Employer contends the release applied to the entire employment relationship. | The release applies to Claimant’s entire employment relationship with the Employer. |
| Should the contract be interpreted de novo and without JCC submission to determine settlement? | Not explicitly stated as opposing de novo review. | Release language should be interpreted as a written instrument without deference to JCC findings. | Court reviews the contract de novo to determine its effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patco Transport, Inc. v. Estupinan, 917 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (release by counsel-represented claimant can settle workers' compensation claims under § 440.20(ll)(c))
- Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1980) (plain language governs releases; no words of art required to show intent)
- Hardage Enters., Inc. v. Fidesys Corp., N.V., 570 So.2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (no specialized terms required when intent is clear from release language)
- Dixon v. City of Jacksonville, 774 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (construction of written instruments reviewed de novo)