ARACELY M. DIAZ-LLERENA, AS LIMITED GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF OCTAVIO P. LLERENA, v. SPILLIS, CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC. and ONEBEACON INSURANCE GROUP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ARACELY M. DIAZLLERENA, AS LIMITED GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF OCTAVIO P. LLERENA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellants, CASE NO. 1D12-5556 v. SPILLIS, CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC. and ONEBEACON INSURANCE GROUP, Appellees. _____________________________/ Opinion filed August 9, 2013. An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. David W. Langham, Judge. Date of Accident: October 11, 1994. James A. Walker of the Law Offices of James A. Walker, P.A., Miami, for Appellants. Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. 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(11)(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(11)(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 the 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 2 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. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
