Cases

In Cabrera I, the claimant, unrepresented, was allowed to withdraw from a settlement agreement since the JCC had not approved the settlement.  Because of the fact that the claimant was not represented by counsel and because the JCC had not approved the settlement, the settlement as alleged was not binding or enforceable. Thereafter, the claimant obtained the services of an attorney and settled the case at mediation which included the payment of an attorney's fee.  Thereafter, the claimant again expressed displeasure with the amount of the settlement, the manner in which it was negotiated, and the means by which the settlement checks would be processed.  Additional testimony was received by the JCC who determined that the agreed upon settlement included both dates of accident that the claimant allegedly suffered from while employed by the employer.  Court determined on appeal that there was competent and substantial evidence to support the JCC's determination that "any and all dates of accidents" agreed to in the settlement documents settled the claimant's multiple injuries with the employer.  DCA decided case by Summary Affirmance when the initial brief filed failed to present a preliminary basis for reversal of the JCC's order.

On appeal, the claimant asserted that he had not signed the settlement documents.  This issue was not asserted in the proceedings before the JCC and because of the failure to do so, this issue was not preserved for appeal purposes.  In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.

The court specifically found that there was no evidence that the claimant had been tricked into settling all of his dates of accident.  The formation of the contract depends not on the agreement of two minds in one intention but on the agreement of two sets of external signs - not on the parties having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.  In this case, the claimant had voluntarily entered into the agreement that expressly settled and extinguished the claimant's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits for all workers' compensation injuries.  The claimant's subjective belief as to whether both accidents were settled is irrelevant to the legal issue.