GEORGE BLAINE, APPELLANT,
v.
PAKS FOOD STORE, A SELF-INSURED AND CORPORATE GROUP SERVICE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A workers' compensation claimant who slipped and fell at work was denied benefits by the judge of industrial claims based on alleged misrepresentations in his employment application regarding prior injuries. The appellate court reversed, holding that under the controlling standard, all required elements must be proven—including a causal relationship between the misrepresentation and the current injury—before benefits may be denied.
The court reversed the denial of benefits, holding that under Martin Co. v. Carpenter, all elements of the test must be proven before benefits are precluded: (1) the employee knew the representation was false, (2) the employer relied upon it, and (3) such reliance resulted in consequent injury to the employer. Additionally, there must be a causal relationship between the injury and the false representation. Here, the record contained no competent, substantial evidence of a causal relationship between the prior injuries and the current accident, nor evidence that the prior injuries contributed to or were aggravated by the slip and fall.
[1] A misrepresentation as to physical condition or health made by an employee in procuring employment will preclude workers' compensation benefits for an otherwise compensab…
[2] To preclude workers' compensation benefits due to misrepresentation, a causal relationship must be shown between the injury and the false representation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[A] false representation as to physical condition or health made by an employee in procuring employment will preclude the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act for an otherwise compensable injury if there is shown to be a causal relationship between the injury and the false representation and if it is also shown that (1) the employee knew the representation to be false, (2) the employer relied upon the false representation and (3) such reliance resulted in consequent injury to the employer.”
The controlling legal standard from Martin Co. v. Carpenter establishing all required elements to preclude workers' compensation benefits based on misrepresentation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Blaine slipped on a wet floor while removing beer from a cooler during his employment at Paks Food Store, sustaining a lower back injury result…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Causal Relationship Between Injury And False Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court’s opinion issued 1/30/80 is withdrawn.
Blaine requests review of the order of the judge of industrial claims which denied him benefits. We reverse.
Blaine slipped on a wet floor and fell injuring his lower back while removing beer from a cooler during his employment at Paks Food Store. The injury resulted in a 5% permanent partial disability rating.
When Blaine completed his pre-employment application, he failed to complete the answer to the question of whether he had any chronic ailments or defects. Subsequently, the workers’ compensation carrier asked the employer to obtain a new form from employees, and Blaine did not complete this form until after the accident. On this form, he did not respond to a question involving job-connected disabilities or injuries. In fact, Blaine had suffered two previous job-connected injuries: a fractured skull resulting in a 25% disability rating; and a cervical injury resulting in a 10-15% disability rating. The employer argues that Blaine’s misrepresentation on his employment applications precludes his receipt of workers’ compensation benefits.
In Martin Co. v. Carpenter, 132 So. 2d 400, 406 (Fla.1961), the Supreme Court established the standards by which misrepresentations in employment applications are to be judged:
[A] false representation as to physical condition or health made by an employee in procuring employment will preclude the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for an otherwise compensable injury if there is shown to be a causal relationship between the injury and the false representation and if it is also shown that (1) the employee knew the representation to be false, (2) the employer relied upon the false representation and (3) such reliance resulted in consequent injury to the employer. In Martin, the falsification was clearly knowledgeable, and a causal link existed between the prior and current injuries. However, the court found the employee was entitled to benefits because the employer did not show reliance. Under Martin, all elements must be present before benefits are precluded. See also Georgetown Manor Furniture Co. v. Smith, 281 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1973). Here, the record does hot contain competent, substantial evidence of a causal relationship between the injuries and the false representations, nor does it support that the prior injuries contributed to or were aggravated by this accident.
The petition for rehearing is granted; the order is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents with opinion.
BOOTH, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from this court’s retention of jurisdiction in this case, which arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. See Crews v. Town of Bay Harbor, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
On the merits, I would concur in the majority’s opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cycenas v. Sarasota Coca Cola Bottling Co. & Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 440 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…en the prior lifting injury and the disc herniation which resulted from the slip and fall. There is no competent substantial evidence that the pri- or injury contributed to or was aggravated by the subsequent accident, see Blaine v. Paks Food Store, 382 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The deputy commissioner made a separate finding that the misrepresentation by claimant was of sufficient magnitude as to vitiate the employment relationship, and appellee points to this conclusion as establishing a separate bas…
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Silvio Provenzano, 394 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…nce of a causal relationship between the injury and the false representations. This position is not supportable by Florida law. Martin and the cases under it have specifically required a finding of causal relationship. See Blaine v. Paks Food Store, 382 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Georgetown Manor Furniture v. Smith, 281 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1973). In this case there was no question that the claimant’s leg and hip injuries were not related to his prior psychiatric problem. With regard to the employer’s other d…
-
Benny Johnson v. Bender Constr. Co. & Feisco, 538 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…DCA 1986); Cycenas v. Sarasota Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 440 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Higgins v. Trigil Repair, Inc., 436 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). All elements must be present before benefits are precluded. Blaine v. Paks Food Store, 382 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In the present case, the employer and carrier failed to establish a causal relationship between claimant’s false representations and his injury. The causal relationship in Martin v. Carpenter is a medical relationship between t…
Authorities Cited
- Emerson Crews v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands & Metro. Dade Cnty. Self Ins. Fund, 378 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Martin Co. & Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Drucella Carpenter & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 132 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1961)
- The Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Herrero, 281 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1973)