Cases

The parties entered into a mediation agreement that the employer/carrier would provide "the requested bed."  Instead of providing the brand of bed specified in a doctor's prescription, which was not incorporated by reference in the agreement, the employer/carrier attempted to deliver a different type of bed.  The claimant filed a Motion to Enforce the Mediation Agreement.  The JCC concluded that there was no meeting of the minds in regards to the stipulated agreement and therefore denied the Motion to Enforce.  On appeal, JCC's order affirmed.

The court determined that the claimant, as the party seeking to enforce the agreement, has the burden of proof that both parties meant the same thing when they entered into the agreement. The claimant was unable to convince the JCC that the agreement was founded on a meeting of the minds and therefore, unenforceable.  Parol evidence is admitted to resolve a contract's ambiguity only when the ambiguity is latent.  If the parties are able to read the same document and come to opposite but equally reasonable conclusions, the ambiguity is considered latent.  The JCC did not err in admitting or relying on parol evidence which supports the JCC's ruling.