Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 18, 2016 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Temporary disability — Affirmative defenses — Misrepresentation for purpose of obtaining benefits

41
Fla. L. Weekly D698a
Top of Form

Workers’
compensation — Temporary disability — Affirmative defenses —
Misrepresentation for purpose of obtaining benefits — Judge of compensation
claims applied too narrow an analysis to employer/carrier’s misrepresentation
defense by considering only whether alleged misrepresentation related to knee
injury for which benefits were being sought — Claimant is barred from
entitlement to benefits if he made any misrepresentation for purpose of
obtaining benefits — However, employer/carrier’s responses to claimant’s
petitions for benefits did not meet pleading requirement set forth in
administrative rule where e/c simply asserted that it was denying entire claim
based on “misrepresentation” and later stipulated that the alleged
misrepresentations involved “physical abilities” and “post-accident earnings”
without detailing conduct underlying defense — Because rule provides 10-day
period for amending defense, case remanded with instructions to give e/c ten
days to amend and thereafter to give claimant opportunity to object/respond to
the affirmative defense with specificity, as required by rule — Job search —
No merit to e/c’s argument that claimant needed to present evidence of
unsuccessful good-faith job search in order to establish entitlement to TPD
benefits in this case

THG RENTALS & SALES OF CLEARWATER, INC./SUMMIT HOLDINGS
— CLAIMS CENTER, Appellants, v. JAMES C. ARNOLD, Appellee. 1st District. Case
No. 1D15-970. Opinion filed March 17, 2016. An appeal from an order of the
Judge of Compensation Claims. Stephen L. Rosen, Judge. Date of Accident: August
6, 2013. Counsel: H. George Kagan of Miller, Kagan, Rodriguez & Silver,
P.L., West Palm Beach, for Appellants. Bradley Guy Smith of Smith, Feddler
& Smith, P.A., Lakeland, and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A.,
Tallahassee, for Appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation case, the
Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals and Claimant cross-appeals an order of the Judge
of Compensation Claims (JCC) rejecting the E/C’s misrepresentation defense and
awarding benefits to Claimant. We reverse and remand because the JCC too
narrowly analyzed the E/C’s misrepresentation defense and because the E/C did
not plead its misrepresentation defense in sufficient detail as required by
Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.113(2)(h).

Facts

Claimant suffered compensable injuries to both his back and
right knee. During the proceedings below, Claimant filed five petitions for
benefits (PFBs) seeking medical and indemnity benefits with respect to both
injuries. By the time of Claimant’s third PFB, the E/C began denying
entitlement to benefits “based on misrepresentation,” which it subsequently
described in the joint pretrial stipulation as: “ ‘Misrepresentation,’ in
violation of §§ 440.09 and .105, F.S. (physical abilities and post-accident
earnings).”

By the time of the final hearing, Claimant sought medical
and indemnity benefits only for his compensable right knee injury. In a trial
memorandum filed two days before the hearing, Claimant asserted, for the first
time, that the E/C’s misrepresentation defense lacked the specificity required
by rule 60Q-6.113(2)(h). At the hearing, however, the JCC found that the E/C’s
defense was pled with sufficient specificity because it “put the Claimant on
notice as to what that defense means.” The E/C proceeded to present video
surveillance, evidence of earnings, and the testimony of doctors who treated
Claimant’s back injury to demonstrate that Claimant had not been truthful with
his doctors. But the JCC ultimately rejected the misrepresentation defense
because the alleged misrepresentation did not relate to Claimant’s right knee,
but only to his back injury. And, according to the JCC, “the issues regarding
the claimant’s back are not before me.” The JCC awarded Claimant’s request for
temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits.

Standard
for Establishing Misrepresentation

We find two things wrong with what occurred below, one
benefitting each party in this case. First, the JCC too narrowly analyzed the
E/C’s defense by considering only whether the alleged misrepresentation related
to Claimant’s knee. The JCC apparently believed that to prove misrepresentation,
the E/C had to link the allegedly false statements directly to the particular
injury and benefits being sought, to Claimant’s knee in this instance. But such
a requirement is not found in the law.

Section 440.105, Florida Statutes, makes it illegal for any
person to “knowingly make, or cause to be made, any false, fraudulent,
or misleading oral or written statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying
any benefit or payment under this chapter” (emphasis added). And section
440.09(4)(a), Florida Statutes, bars benefits for an employee found to have
“knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s.
440.105 . . . for the purpose of securing workers’ compensation benefits”
(emphasis added). Accordingly, this court has recognized that “it is not
necessary that a false, fraudulent, or misleading statement be material to the
claim; it only must be made for the purpose of obtaining benefits.” Village
of N. Palm Beach v. McKale
, 911 So. 2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Fraud
“does not limit a claimant’s forfeiture to those benefits that may have been
obtained by virtue of the claimant’s unlawful conduct.” Wright v. Unifs. for
Indus.
, 772 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (quoting Rustic Lodge v.
Escobar
, 720 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). Thus, if the Claimant
made any misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining benefits, then
he is barred from entitlement to benefits, even if the misrepresentation is
unrelated to his knee injury or benefits based on that injury.

Specificity
of the E/C’s Misrepresentation Defense

The second error below relates to the requirement for
pleading a misrepresentation defense under rule 60Q-6.113(2)(h), which
provides:

Any
defense raised pursuant to Sections 440.09(4)(a) and 440.105, F.S., and any
affirmative defense, must be raised with specificity, detailing the conduct
giving rise to the defense
, with leave to amend within 10 days. Failure to
plead with specificity shall result in the striking of the defense. Any
objections/responses to the affirmative defenses must be pled with specificity.

(Emphasis added.) Here, in its responses to Claimant’s PFBs,
the E/C asserted that it was denying the entire claim based on
“misrepresentation,” with nothing more. Then, in its pretrial stipulation, the
E/C only identified two broad categories of alleged misrepresentations —
“physical abilities” and “post-accident earnings” — without detailing the
misrepresentative conduct. “Only oral or written statements can
serve as the predicate for disqualification from benefits.” Dieujuste v. J.
Dodd Plumbing, Inc.
, 3 So. 3d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). And, here,
the E/C failed to identify any statement upon which it was basing its
misrepresentation defense. Thus, the E/C did not plead its defense in sufficient
detail to satisfy the rule.

But, in this instance, we cannot simply strike the E/C’s
defense under rule 60Q-6.113(2)(h) without affording the rule-prescribed 10-day
period for amending its defense. Although the rule does not impose a timeframe
for a claimant to object to a defense, it does give an E/C ten days from a
claimant’s specificity objection to amend. Because Claimant failed to object or
seek a ruling regarding the deficient defense until two days before the final
hearing, the E/C had no time to amend its defense to conform with the rule’s
specificity requirements.

And so, taking account of both parties’ rights, we remand
with instructions to the JCC to give the E/C ten days to amend its pleading,
and thereafter to give the Claimant an opportunity to object/respond to the
affirmative defense with specificity, as required by the rule. If the E/C
satisfies the rule’s specificity requirement, then the JCC should determine
whether Claimant made “any” statements afoul of subsection 440.09(4)(a), Florida
Statutes, irrespective of whether the statements relate to the specific
injuries for which Claimant is seeking benefits.

Lack
of Job Search

Finally, we find no merit in the E/C’s argument that the
Claimant in this case needed to present evidence of an unsuccessful good-faith
job search in order to establish entitlement to temporary partial disability
benefits. See Thayer v. Chico’s FAS, Inc., 98 So. 3d 766, 768
(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Wyeth/Pharma Field Sales v. Toscano, 40 So. 3d 795,
802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, we AFFIRM, in part, and
REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
(ROBERTS, CJ., OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982