Plaintiff's Settlement of his WC Claim Was Not an "Election of Remedies"
Can a plaintiff file a workers' compensation claim and collect a $350,000 settlement - ostensibly on the theory that he was an "employee" injured in the course of his employment on the date of his accident - and then later sue his "employer" in tort on the theory that he wasn't an "employee" after all? Yes, said the Second District Court of Appeal in this case involving the doctrine of "election of remedies." Here's what happened.
Father ("Arnulfo Sanchez Hernandez"), who was an employee of Sorrells Brothers Packing Company ("Packing Company"), was working in a citrus grove while his 17-year-od son ("Sanchez Vasquez"), who was not an employee of Packing Company, was also present. (It is not clear from the opinion why the son was on the jobsite). Sanchez Vasquez was seriously injured when he was struck by a vehicle known as a "goat" - owned by Sorrells Grove Care, Inc. ("Grove Care") and operated by another Packing Company employee ("Ramos"). Evidently not knowing that Sanchez Vasquez was in fact not an employee of Packing Company, his attorney filed a workers' compensation claim for him against Packing Company. (You can see the petition for benefits here). Packing Company and its workers' compensation carrier ("Clarendon") denied the claim on the grounds that Sanchez Vasquez was not its "employee." (You can read the denial here.)
Rebuffed in his attempt to claim workers' compensation benefits, Sanchez Vasquez therefore filed a tort claim against Packing Co., also naming Grove Care and Ramos in the complaint. In its answer - contrary to the position it had taken in the workers' compensation proceedings - Packing Company alleged that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity because Sanchez Vasquez was its employee. Thereafter, at Packing Company's request, the trial court stayed the tort claim proceedings until the workers' compensation claim was resolved. (Actually, Sanchez Vasquez filed a motion to stay the workers' compensation proceedings until the tort claim could be resolved. That motion was denied by the JCC, whose order you can read here).
There never was an adjudication of the workers' compensation claim on the merits, however. Clarendon and Sanchez Vasquez negotiated and finalized a $350,000 settlement of that claim - even though Packing Company objected to it. (You can read the order approving the motion for attorney's fees arising out of the settlement agreement here). After the settlement was finalized, the stay of the tort proceedings was lifted and Packing Company filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, by settling with the workers' compensation carrier, Sanchez Vasquez had "elected his remedy" and was therefore barred from further pursuit of the tort claim against Packing Company. The trial court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, however, the Second DCA reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Relying upon the Florida Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Jones v. Martin Electronics, Inc., the Second DCA concluded that Vasquez Sanchez had not "elected his remedy" when he settled his workers' compensation claim:
Applying the Jones analysis to the instant case, we conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that Sanchez Vasquez made an election of remedies when he settled the workers' compensation proceeding. By his actions, Sanchez Vasquez did not demonstrate a conscious intent to choose the workers' compensation benefits to the exclusion of his potential tort claim, and he did not pursue that claim to a conclusion on the merits.
In support of its conclusion that Sanchez Vasquez did not demonstrate "a conscious intent to choose the workers' compensation forum," the Court pointed to the fact that it was the employer which had maintained inconsistent positions here - first denying in the workers' compensation proceedings that Sanchez Vasquez was its employee and then claiming in the tort proceedings that he was. The Court also pointed out that the actual release signed by Sanchez Vasquez contained this provision:
This settlement is entered into between Claimant and the Released Parties and shall not be considered an election of remedies by Claimant precluding a possible cause of action against Sorrell Brothers. . . .
In support of its conclusion that Sanchez Vasquez did not pursue the workers' compensation claim "to a conclusion on the merits," the Court pointed out that the release agreement specifically provided that the compensability of Sanchez Vasquez's injuries under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act remained contested, that the carrier was making the settlement "in order to avoid the expense and incovenience of litigation," and that Packing Company did not agree to the settlement and was not a party to it.
Of course, the Court did not determine that Packing Company is in fact liable in tort to Sanchez Vasquez - only that Sanchez Vasquez has not "elected his remedy" by filing and then settling a workers' compenation claim against the putative employer.
