Quinlan v. Ross Stores, 1D05-2952.

Decision Date24 April 2006
Docket NumberNo. 1D05-2952.,1D05-2952.
Citation932 So.2d 428
PartiesValerie J. QUINLAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Betty Jean Jacobsen, Appellant, v. ROSS STORES and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Kevin G. Bennett and Howard S. Grossman of Howard S. Grossman, P.A., Boca Raton, for Appellant.

Maria Kayanan of Kubicki Draper, Miami, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers' compensation case, the deceased claimant's personal representative appeals from an order of the judge of compensation claims denying her motion to enforce a proposed settlement agreement. The proposed agreement was based on the terms of a Mediation Settlement Agreement that the parties had reached as to the claimant's compensable industrial accident. Because the contingencies to final settlement set forth in the Mediation Settlement Agreement had not occurred, we agree with the judge's ruling that a final and enforceable agreement was never made.

The Mediation Settlement Agreement was expressly not final and was contingent upon both parties' approval of a Medicare set-aside amount for future medical care. It was also expressly contingent upon resolution of any Medicare lien(s) that may be determined to exist. Neither of these contingencies had come to pass at the time that the claimant signed a draft proposed settlement agreement prepared by the carrier's attorney. Nor did the employer/carrier ever execute the proposed agreement. Although the proposed settlement agreement contained a recommended figure for the Medicare set-aside amount, that amount had yet to be approved by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services ("CMMS") at the Department of Health & Human Services. Such approval was required before the employer/carrier could sign off on the amount. Further, the parties agree that the existence and amount of any Medicare liens had yet to be determined at the time the claimant signed the proposed agreement. The claimant died less than a month after signing the draft documents.

We agree with the judge's conclusion below that the express contingencies set forth in the Mediation Settlement Agreement were not satisfied at the time the claimant signed the proposed agreement or by the time she died. We reject the claimant's argument that the mere inclusion in the draft agreement of the recommended set-aside amount and discussion of responsibility for any liens therein amounted to resolution of these issues and fulfillment of the contingencies. Competent substantial evidence in the record supports the judge's finding that the parties intended for finality of the settlement agreement to hinge on both approval of the set-aside amount by CMMS and actual resolution of any Medicare liens after the existence and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Gunderson v. School Dist. of Hillsborough, 1D05-4323.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 2006
    ...apply the competent substantial evidence standard to those determinations of fact made by the lower court. See Quinlan v. Ross Stores, 932 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); cf. Calderon v. J.B. Nurseries, Inc., 933 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA In defense of its failure to perform the settlemen......
  • Ivester v. Parkway Regional
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 2008
    ...provision: If there is no CMS approval, whatever the reason, Claimant can void the agreement. See also Quinlan v. Ross Stores, 932 So.2d 428, 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (upholding the JCC's finding that a final and enforceable agreement was never made where the parties intended finality of the......
1 books & journal articles
  • Enforcement of workers' compensation settlements.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 83 No. 4, April 2009
    • April 1, 2009
    ...of the deceased must show the court that the agreement was binding for it to remain valid. Contrarily, in Quinlan v. Ross Stores, 932 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the appellate court held that a mediation agreement was not enforceable as it contained language demonstrating that the parti......

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