CARMEN SANTIAGO, APPELLANT,
v.
MARRIOTT CASUALTY CLAIMS AND COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT OIA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carmen Santiago appealed the denial of attorney's fees for obtaining payment of previously contested medical bills from Dr. Sharfman in a workers' compensation case. The court reversed, holding that the joint petition settlement expressly excluded those contested bills from the lump-sum payment and reserved jurisdiction to determine fees for obtaining them separately.
The court held that Dr. Sharfman's contested medical bills were expressly excluded from the lump-sum payment and the joint petition reserved jurisdiction for the judge of compensation claims to determine reasonable attorney's fees for obtaining payment of those bills. Therefore, the fee for obtaining that benefit was not included in the fees obtained under the lump-sum settlement.
[1] A contract must be construed to give effect to all of its provisions.
[2] A joint petition in a workers' compensation case may expressly exclude certain fees from a lump-sum settlement and reserve jurisdiction for the judge of compensation clai…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A contract must be construed to give effect to all of its provisions.”
Establishes the fundamental principle of contract interpretation that guides the court's analysis of the joint petition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties entered into a joint petition for a lump-sum settlement that included payment of attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
The claimant appeals the denial of attorney’s fees for obtaining payment of the previously contested medical bills of Dr. Sharfman. The judge of compensation claims denied attorney’s fees on the basis that all fees due to the claimant were included in the lump-sum payment pursuant to the terms of a lump-sum settlement agreement approved by a joint petition. The claimant argues the joint petition expressly excluded the contested fees from the lump-sum payment and expressly reserved the jurisdiction of the judge of compensation claims to determine the claimant’s entitlement to the contested fees and the amount due. The employer/carrier ar gue the contested fees are subsumed in the fees granted under the terms of the joint petition as determined by the judge of compensation claims. We agree with the claimant and reverse.
The parties’ joint petition provided for a lump-sum payment which included payment of attorney’s fees for services rendered in connection with the lump-sum settlement. Although the joint petition provided for payment of Dr. Sharfman’s previously contested bills, payment of those bills was in addition to, not included in, the lump-sum payment. The joint petition also reserved the judge of compensation claims’ jurisdiction to determine the claimant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees for past services outside those fees outlined in the joint petition should the parties be unable to resolve that issue.
A contract must be construed to give effect to all of its provisions. See City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So. 2d 80, 84 (Fla.2000). The judge of compensation claims’ interpretation of the joint petition failed to give effect to those provisions which exclude payment of Dr. Sharfman’s bills from the lump-sum payment and reserves for later adjudication the issue of the claimant’s entitlement to payment of attorney’s fees . for past services. Dr. Sharfman’s bills were not included in the lump-sum payment. Thus, the fee for obtaining that benefit was not included in the fees obtained under the lump-sum settlement.
For these reasons, we REVERSE and REMAND for the judge of compensation claims to determine a reasonable attorney’s fees to be paid to the claimant’s attorney by the employer/carrier for services rendered in obtaining payment of Dr. Sharfman’s bills.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dominguez v. Cruise Holdings, 814 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…udge of compensation claims (JCC) erred by failing to give effect to the settlement agreement, wherein the parties agreed that claimant’s attorney was entitled to a fee based upon the $7,500 lump-sum settlement. See Santiago v. Marriott Cas. Claims, 776 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The JCC is directed on remand to consider the $7,500 settlement in making the fee award. In so doing, the JCC should assess the parties’ contrary interpretations of the settlement provision, taking additional evidence if necessa…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000)