Watch Those General Releases When Settling a WC Claim
When settling a workers' compensation claim with an employee, most Florida employers - particularly if they're self-insured - want the employee to settle not only his rights under the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, but any other kind of employment-related claim which the employee may have as well. As Manzini & Associates, P.A. v. Broward Sheriff's Office indicates, however, all parties should take care in entering into such agreements.
The plaintiff/claimant in the case was pursuing both a civil rights claim and a workers’ compensation claim against her employer, Broward Sheriff’s Office, using two different lawyers. She eventually fired her civil rights lawyer (Manzini), however, and subsequently entered into an agreement to settle all of her claims against Broward, using her workers’ compensation lawyer. (We don’t have the general release, but you can see the motion for approval of attorney’s fees in the workers’ compensation case and the JCC’s order approving the motion here).
Manzini was understandably peeved when he found out later that the civil rights case had been settled, apparently suspecting that he had been fired in order to deprive him of his fee. He therefore filed a motion to set aside the settlement in the civil rights case and asked the court to allow him to continue with that action in the plaintiff/claimant’s name in order to protect his entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees against the employer (such fees are allowed to a prevailing plaintiff under §760.11, Fla. Stat.)
In Mabry v. Knabb, 151 Fla. 432, 10 So.2d 330, 337 (1942), the Supreme Court of Florida said this:
[W]here a client makes a fraudulent or collusive settlement intended to deprive the attorney of his compensation or cost fees, the attorney will be permitted to proceed with the suit in the client’s name for the purpose of protecting his interests (Emphasis added).
The claimant's workers’ compensation attorney testified below that he didn’t know that there was another case pending against the employer at the time of the settlement. After considering the evidence, the trial court found that only the plaintiff/claimant was at fault and that none of the attorneys in the case was involved in any attempt to defraud Manzini of his fee, and the Fourth District concluded that those findings were supported by the record. On that basis, the court distinguished Mabry and therefore concluded that the lawyer should not be allowed to continue with the suit.
I don’t know, but it seems to me that even if none of the attorneys knew anything about the pending civil rights action, Broward could be deemed to have known about it. And Mabry says that if the client makes a fraudulent or collusive settlement intended to deprive the attorney of his fee, the attorney can proceed with the suit in an attempt to collect his fee. In any event, Manzini is now seeking supreme court review. See Manzini & Associates, P.A. v. Broward Sheriff’s Office, et al., Case No. SC08-774.
