Czopek v. GREAT CHEMICALS, 1D99-2320.

Decision Date22 June 2000
Docket NumberNo. 1D99-2320.,1D99-2320.
Citation778 So.2d 996
PartiesDiana CZOPEK, Appellant, v. GREAT CHEMICALS and GAB Business Services, Inc., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Monte R. Shoemaker, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

Debra L. Zeitler and Michael L. Peterson of Moore & Peterson, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

WOLF, J.

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant, Diana Czopek, asserts that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) erred in finding that a reimbursement from Nutri/System constituted a future medical benefit that she was not entitled to pursuant to the terms of her washout settlement agreement entered into with the employer/carrier (E/C). We reverse.

As the result of a workplace accident, the claimant, Diana Czopek, sustained a compensable injury to her eyes and to her back. Following back surgery, her physician prescribed a supervised weight-loss program which was paid for in advance by the E/C and provided by Nutri/System. Subsequently, after attending a mediation conference, the parties entered into a stipulation and joint petition for lump sum settlement (a "washout") pursuant to section 440.20(11)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (1994), which was approved by the JCC on March 12, 1998. Approximately two months later, Nutri/System closed its facilities in Central Florida, and because Czopek had not completed the program, Nutri/System forwarded a check for $2,520.10 (representing the unused portion of the program) to the E/C. Czopek filed a request for assistance and a petition for benefits, seeking payment of the Nutri/System refund. Then, because the E/C refused to pay the Nutri/System refund to her, Czopek filed a motion to modify the JCC's order approving the "washout" settlement.

Following a hearing on the issue, the JCC entered a compensation order, finding that Czopek had voluntarily entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement; that, among other things, she had waived the right to petition for modification of the agreement, and she had released the E/C from obligation or liability for any future compensable benefits; that the refund requested was for a future medical benefit; and that there was no fraud, overreaching, or misrepresentation which would allow him to modify the settlement agreement. Consequently, the JCC determined that while he had jurisdiction of the parties, he did not have jurisdiction to order payment of the refund, and that in light of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Jacobsen v. Stores, 1D03-2868.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 2004
    ...well-settled. Construction of a settlement agreement is "a matter clearly within the province of the JCC." Czopek v. Great Chemicals & GAB, 778 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The JCC has authority to determine whether a valid, binding settlement agreement was reached, and if so, to giv......
  • Borque v. Trugreen, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 15, 2004
    ...Workers' Compensation Law to determine how to construe and whether to give effect to the settlement. See Czopek v. Great Chemicals & Gab, 778 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In July 2003 the claims judge approved the The settlement agreement required Trugreen to pay Borque a lump sum pa......
  • McCallum v. Palm Beach County School District, 1D07-0727.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 2007
    ...failed to abide by the agreement. See, e.g., Cartaya v. Coastline Dist., 937 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Czopek v. Great Chems., 778 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We direct the judge of compensation claims on remand to determine the validity of McCallum's motion for attorney's REVERSED ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT