So, This Workers Compensation Claim is Settled, Right? Workers' Compensation Benefits Settlement May Not Bar Retaliation Claim

So, you finally got your former injured employee to sign that settlement agreement you've been negotiating with his attorney for his workers' compensation benefits. You did not truly believe he was entitled to the benefits because of the questionable nature of his injury, but you decided that the settlement was worth it to avoid litigation costs.

Now you have paid him the settlement money and discover that he has filed another claim against your company that alleges you terminated his employment in retaliation for his filing a workers' compensation claim. Wait a minute, you ask. I thought our settlement agreement covered all of his workers' compensation claims? He should not be able to sue us again for something that we just entered into a settlement agreement for, right?

According to the Eleventh Circuit, the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Florida, the answer to that question is maybe--it depends upon the precise language the parties use in their settlement agreement. In Borque v. Trugreen, Inc. d/b/a Trugreen Chemlawn, 395 F.2d 1354 (11th Cir. 2004), the Eleventh Circuit held that the settlement of an injured courier's claim for workers' compensation benefits did not bar him from proceeding with a workers' compensation retaliatory discharge claim.

Learn about the importance of background screening, how to conduct effective background screening using in-house personnel or a Consumer Reporting Agency, and comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and other relevant laws.

The facts giving rise to this case are as follows. In September 2002, Borque injured his shoulder while working as a courier for Trugreen in Miami. Borque was treated for his injury at a workers' compensation clinic and given a lifting restriction by his physician. After Borque sought treatment, Trugreen questioned the validity of his injury, threatened to give his route to another employee, and ultimately terminated his employment a month later. Borque filed a claim for retaliatory discharge pursuant Fla. Stat. § 440.205, the anti-retaliation provision of Florida Workers' Compensation law. In addition, Borque retained the services of another attorney to handle his separate claim for workers' compensation benefits.

Borque's claim for workers' compensation benefits was ultimately settled for $8,300. The release language of Borque's and Trugreen's settlement stated that it was "intended to be a complete, entire and final release and waiver of any and all rights to any and all past, present, and future benefits…[that Borque] is or may be entitled to under [the Florida Workers Compensation Statutes]… and any other actions, claims, demands or causes of actions, whatsoever" that Borque may have had against Trugreen. Another provision of the settlement stated that the agreement provided "full satisfaction of the obligation or liability of [Trugreen]… to pay any and all benefits of whatever kind or classification available under Florida Workers' Compensation Law…" The agreement, however, failed to specifically state that Borque was releasing Trugreen from his retaliatory discharge claim pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 440.205.

Trugreen removed Borque's retaliatory discharge claim from state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on procedural grounds and filed a motion to have his claim dismissed pursuant to the release language from the parties' settlement. The district court found that Borque's retaliation claim was barred by the settlement agreement. Borque filed an appeal of the district court's decision with the Eleventh Circuit.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit followed the holding of the Florida Supreme Court in Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Adm'rs, 427 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1983) that a general release waiving any claims for workers' compensation benefits does not necessarily release a retaliatory discharge claim under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 unless there is clear evidence that the employee meant to do so. The Eleventh Circuit found that Trugreen's settlement agreement with Borque did not clearly manifest any intent upon Borque's part to waive his retaliatory discharge claim. Certain provisions of the settlement agreement characterized the payments to Borque as full satisfaction for any obligation or liability of Trugreen to pay Borque worker's compensation benefits. The Eleventh Circuit found that these provisions were inconsistent with other language in the agreement that stated Borque was releasing Trugreen from all claims of liability.

Given this inconsistency in the agreement's language as to whether Borque intended to release his retaliation claim, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision and sent the case back down for further proceedings to determine whether the parties intended to cover Borque's retaliation claim in their settlement.

* * * * *

While the intent of the parties' settlement agreement in this case may have been unclear, the implications of the Eleventh's Circuit's decision are clear. When settling a worker's compensation claim, employers should strive to include clear release of liability language that covers not only claims for workers' compensation benefits, but workers' compensation retaliation claims as well. Otherwise, Florida employers could end up in the unenviable position of paying out workers' compensation settlements and still having to incur additional litigation costs to defend workers' compensation retaliation claims.

Provided by: HRTutor.com and The Human Equation Email this article So, This Workers Compensation Claim is Settled, Right? Workers' Compensation Benefits Settlement May Not Bar Retaliation Claim By: James W. Jones
So, you finally got your former injured employee to sign that settlement agreement you've been negotiating with his attorney for his workers' compensation benefits. You did not truly believe he was entitled to the benefits because of the questionable nature of his injury, but you decided that the settlement was worth it to avoid litigation costs. Now you have paid him the settlement money and discover that he has filed another claim against your company that alleges you terminated his employment in retaliation for his filing a workers' compensation claim. Wait a minute, you ask. I thought our settlement agreement covered all of his workers' compensation claims? He should not be able to sue us again for something that we just entered into a settlement agreement for, right? According to the Eleventh Circuit, the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Florida, the answer to that question is maybe--it depends upon the precise language the parties use in their settlement agreement. In Borque v. Trugreen, Inc. d/b/a Trugreen Chemlawn, 395 F.2d 1354 (11th Cir. 2004), the Eleventh Circuit held that the settlement of an injured courier's claim for workers' compensation benefits did not bar him from proceeding with a workers' compensation retaliatory discharge claim. Learn about the importance of background screening, how to conduct effective background screening using in-house personnel or a Consumer Reporting Agency, and comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and other relevant laws. The facts giving rise to this case are as follows. In September 2002, Borque injured his shoulder while working as a courier for Trugreen in Miami. Borque was treated for his injury at a workers' compensation clinic and given a lifting restriction by his physician. After Borque sought treatment, Trugreen questioned the validity of his injury, threatened to give his route to another employee, and ultimately terminated his employment a month later. Borque filed a claim for retaliatory discharge pursuant Fla. Stat. § 440.205, the anti-retaliation provision of Florida Workers' Compensation law. In addition, Borque retained the services of another attorney to handle his separate claim for workers' compensation benefits. Borque's claim for workers' compensation benefits was ultimately settled for $8,300. The release language of Borque's and Trugreen's settlement stated that it was "intended to be a complete, entire and final release and waiver of any and all rights to any and all past, present, and future benefits…[that Borque] is or may be entitled to under [the Florida Workers Compensation Statutes]… and any other actions, claims, demands or causes of actions, whatsoever" that Borque may have had against Trugreen. Another provision of the settlement stated that the agreement provided "full satisfaction of the obligation or liability of [Trugreen]… to pay any and all benefits of whatever kind or classification available under Florida Workers' Compensation Law…" The agreement, however, failed to specifically state that Borque was releasing Trugreen from his retaliatory discharge claim pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 440.205. Trugreen removed Borque's retaliatory discharge claim from state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on procedural grounds and filed a motion to have his claim dismissed pursuant to the release language from the parties' settlement. The district court found that Borque's retaliation claim was barred by the settlement agreement. Borque filed an appeal of the district court's decision with the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit followed the holding of the Florida Supreme Court in Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Adm'rs, 427 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1983) that a general release waiving any claims for workers' compensation benefits does not necessarily release a retaliatory discharge claim under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 unless there is clear evidence that the employee meant to do so. The Eleventh Circuit found that Trugreen's settlement agreement with Borque did not clearly manifest any intent upon Borque's part to waive his retaliatory discharge claim. Certain provisions of the settlement agreement characterized the payments to Borque as full satisfaction for any obligation or liability of Trugreen to pay Borque worker's compensation benefits. The Eleventh Circuit found that these provisions were inconsistent with other language in the agreement that stated Borque was releasing Trugreen from all claims of liability. Given this inconsistency in the agreement's language as to whether Borque intended to release his retaliation claim, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision and sent the case back down for further proceedings to determine whether the parties intended to cover Borque's retaliation claim in their settlement. * * * * * While the intent of the parties' settlement agreement in this case may have been unclear, the implications of the Eleventh's Circuit's decision are clear. When settling a worker's compensation claim, employers should strive to include clear release of liability language that covers not only claims for workers' compensation benefits, but workers' compensation retaliation claims as well. Otherwise, Florida employers could end up in the unenviable position of paying out workers' compensation settlements and still having to incur additional litigation costs to defend workers' compensation retaliation claims.
© 2005 HRTutor.com & The Human Equation. All rights reserved. No reproduction, display or sale is permitted without the express written consent of the copyright owner. The Human Equation's newsletters and publications are intended as an information source for the clients and friends of the firm. Their content should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information in these publications without professional guidance. Please note that newsletters and publications that are archived by The Human Equation or HRTutor.com are not updated after initial publication and may not contain the most current information available.