Raban v. Federal Express
34 FLW D1152
Parties entered into a settlement agreement. JCC subsequently entered an order approving attorney fees and in relevant part determined that "the entire settlement shall be subject to penalties and interest if payment is not rendered timely." The settlement agreement between the parties required the claimant to execute a general release and waiver.
Employer/carrier did not timely pay the settlement sum and motion filed by claimant for attorney fees and costs. JCC denied penalties and interest based on the claimant’s failure to timely execute a release which was a condition precedent to the agreement and that payment was not late. From this order, an appeal was taken.
JCC’s order requiring the payment of penalties and interest is final 30 days after mailing of such order unless appealed. Although a JCC may vacate or amend an order not yet final, once an unambiguous order becomes final, the JCC is without jurisdiction to amend, vacate or republish it. The motion to amend the judge’s order requiring the payment of interest and penalties for the late payment of a settlement had become final and not subject to being vacated by the JCC.
Even if the JCC had jurisdiction to vacate the order concerning payment of penalties and interest, res judicata in this instance would preclude such an action in this case. The JCC had ruled that employer/carrier did have notice of the order awarding penalties and interest for the late payment of the settlement sums and that the signing of the general release was not a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the settlement. That order was final and had not been appealed by the employer/carrier.
Section 440.20(11)c, Florida Statutes, precludes a statutory basis for an award of penalties and interest on lump sum settlement such as the claimant’s in this instance. However, the parties are free to negotiate, as a part of a settlement agreement, for payment of increased benefits should the payment of settlement proceeds be late. Payment of attorney’s fees and costs in this instance was based upon the parties’ agreement to such benefits and not the statutory basis for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs.