LAWRENCE WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIFORMS FOR INDUSTRY, A/K/A BLUE RIBBON LAUNDRY AND FCCI MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Lawrence Wright, convicted of workers' compensation fraud, challenged a statutory bar on all workers' compensation benefits under Florida Statutes § 440.09(4). The court affirmed that the forfeiture statute does not violate the double jeopardy or excessive fines clauses of the federal or state constitutions.
The statutory bar does not violate either the federal or state double jeopardy clause because it survives the Hudson test for double jeopardy analysis. The statute also does not violate the excessive fines clause because it does not contemplate payment to a sovereign, which is required for a penalty to qualify as a 'fine' under the excessive fines clauses.
[1] A claimant convicted of workers' compensation fraud is barred from receiving any benefits under section 440.09(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), regardless of whether the…
[2] A statute mandating forfeiture of all workers' compensation benefits upon a finding of intentional fraud does not violate the double jeopardy clauses of the federal or st…
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“section 440.09(4) ... mandates that a claimant forfeit all compensation or benefits once there has been a finding of knowing or intentional fraud, and does not limit a claimant's forfeiture to those benefits that may have been obtained by virtue of the claimant's unlawful conduct.”
Establishes the scope of the statutory bar—forfeiture applies to all benefits, not just those obtained through fraud.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright was convicted on two counts of workers' compensation fraud under Florida Statutes § 440.105(4)(b)1. After his conviction, he filed a petition s…
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 Forfeiture Of Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
Following his conviction on two counts of workers’ compensation fraud in violation of section 440.105(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), the claimant in this workers’ compensation case filed a petition seeking various benefits. The employer and carrier responded that all benefits were barred by section 440.09(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which states that “[a]n employee shall not be entitled to compensation or benefits under this chapter if any administrative hearing officer, court, or jury convened in this state determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 for the purpose of seeming workers’ compensation benefits.” The judge of compensation claims held that the claimant was barred from seeking any benefits, relying on the decision in Rustic Lodge v. Escobar, 729 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), where we said that “section 440.09(4) ... mandates that a claimant forfeit all compensation or benefits once there has been a finding of know>-ing or intentional fraud, and does not limit a claimant’s forfeiture to those benefits that may have been obtained by virtue of the claimant’s unlawful conduct.”
On appeal, the claimant argues that, because section 440.09(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), does not limit a claimant’s forfeiture to benefits obtained by virtue of the unlawful conduct, it violates the double-jeopardy and excessive fines clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Applying the test set out in Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997), to section 440.09(4), we conclude that the statute does not offend either the federal or the state double jeopardy clause. See Cohens v. Elwell, 600 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (the scope of the double jeopardy clause in the Florida Constitution is the same as that in the federal constitution).
The excessive fines clauses of the federal and state constitutions are implicated only if the “fine” is a “punishmen.” E.g., Busbee v. State, Div. of Retirement, 685 So. 2d 914, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
As the Supreme Court has explained, the word “fine” as used in the excessive fines clause of the federal constitution has historically been interpreted “ ‘to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.’ ” United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 327-28, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998) (quoting Browning-Ferns Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 265, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989)).
Section 440.09(4) does not contemplate any payment to a sovereign.
Accordingly, we conclude that it does not offend the excessive fines clause of either the state or the federal constitution. See Jardanowski v. Industrial Comm’n of Ariz., 3 P. 3d 1166, 1168 n. 4 (Ariz.Ct.App.2000) (forfeiture of workers’ compensation benefits for making false representations does not involve payment to a sovereign and, therefore, is not a “fine” for purposes of the excessive fines clause of the federal constitution).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C.J., and BOOTH, J„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mariana Medina v. Gulf Coast Linen Servs. & Commercial Risk, 825 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…w denied, 689 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1997). Initially, we note that this court previously has held that this statute does not offend the excessive fines clauses of the constitutions because no payment is made to a sovereign. Wright v. Uniforms for Indus., 772 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Neither must the claimant make any payment or return to the employer or carrier for benefits already received. With regard to appellant’s claim, the workers’ compensation program must be viewed as a whole. It replaced the “unwi…
-
THG Rentals & Sales OF Clearwater v. Arnold, 196 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)….” 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, 729 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). Thus, if Claimant made any misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining benefits, then he is barred from entitlement to benefits, even if the misrepr…
-
W.D. Childers v. State, 989 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…not a fine because the employee has not been ordered to pay anything to the government. Unlike a criminal forfeiture statute, section 112.3173(3) merely relieves the State of its duty to pay retirement benefits. See also Wright v. Unifs. for Indus., 772 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (rejecting an excessive fines challenge to section 440.09, Florida Statutes, which denies workers’ compensation benefits to employees that engage in a criminal act for the purpose of securing workers’ compensation benefits.)…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1989)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1997)
- Cohens v. Honorable Thomas Elwell, 600 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Busbee v. State, 685 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Rustic Lodge & Associated Indus. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Escobar, 729 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)