Workers’ compensation — Temporary partial disability benefits — Fraud or misrepresentation — Post-injury earnings — Medical condition — Claimant who received post-injury paychecks from delivery service, but who claimed the paychecks were for work performed by claimant’s husband and were only issued to claimant due to her husband’s lack of a bank account — Judge of compensation claims did not err in rejecting employer/carrier’s misrepresentation defenses — Competent substantial evidence supports JCC’s finding that claimant did not misrepresent her post-injury earnings because she did not actually earn wages from the delivery service — Simply reporting payments to the IRS does not necessarily mean claimant earned them herself — Even assuming claimant should have reported payments as her own earnings, it is difficult to conclude that she misrepresented the payments because she told e/c about her situation months before filing the DWC-19 form at issue — JCC did not err in finding no fraud on claimant’s DWC-19 forms based on conclusion that claimant lacked the requisite intent because she did not knowingly misrepresent her earnings with the intent to obtain benefits — While JCC would have been justified in finding that claimant lacked credibility in light of claimant’s dealings outside the workers’ compensation claim, it is within the JCC’s discretion to resolve a conflict in evidence and make credibility determinations — Fact that claimant was open about her arrangement with delivery service ultimately constitutes competent substantial evidence in support of JCC’s finding that claimant lacked requisite intent for fraud when submitting forms — JCC did not err by failing to find that claimant misrepresented her medical condition to her doctors — Although e/c alleges there was inconsistency between claimant’s presentation to her doctors and her documented activities in surveillance video, the misrepresentation statute requires e/c to prove claimant made false, fraudulent, incomplete, or misleading oral or written statements for the purpose of securing compensation — Doctors’ testimony that claimant’s activities shown in surveillance video were not inconsistent with her diagnosis also provided competent substantial evidence in support of JCC’s finding — JCC did not err in determining that claimant did not misrepresent her medical condition in her deposition testimony — To extent there may be inconsistencies between surveillance video and claimant’s reported physical capabilities during those time periods, the JCC’s ultimate conclusion that there was no intentional misrepresentation is supported by JCC’s finding that claimant is generally a poor historian
45 Fla. L. Weekly D1727a
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