JOHNNY BATTLE D/B/A BATTLE CONSTRUCTION AND AMCOMP/PINNACLE BENEFITS INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
TIM E. GENTRY, APPELLEE
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.
The appellate court reversed a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) order that invalidated a worker's exemption from workers' compensation. The court found that the worker had indeed taken a valid oath, as required by statute, despite the JCC's contrary finding.
No, the claimant's notice of election was not invalid. The claimant's affirmation on the form constituted a valid oath under the statute, and therefore the JCC erred in ruling the notice invalid.
[1] A "notice of election to be exempt" from workers' compensation requirements is invalid if it lacks an oath as statutorily required.
[2] The word "oath" includes affirmations and can be satisfied by an unequivocal act in the presence of an authorized officer by which the declarant knowingly attests to the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The JCC found that the form was signed before the notary, but that the claimant had not taken an oath and, therefore, ruled that the claimant was an employee entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.”
Describes the lower court's finding that led to the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant sought to exempt himself from workers' compensation requirements by filing a notice of election. The JCC found this notice invalid because,…
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.
PER CURIAM.
This case comes to us on appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that the claimant’s notice of election to be exempt pursuant to section 440.05(3), Florida Statutes (2001), was invalid because of the lack of an oath as the statute requires.
Section 440.05(3), provides that certain construction industry workers can exempt themselves from the requirements' of workers’ compensation law by mailing a written notice of election to be exempt that is notarized and under oath. The JCC found that the form was signed before the notary, but that the claimant had not taken an oath and, therefore, ruled that the claimant was an employee entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.
We reverse the JCC’s order because the JCC’s finding that the claimant had not taken an oath is erroneous.
The word “oath” is defined in part as a “solemn declaration, accompanied by a swearing to God or a revered person or thing, that one’s statement is true or that one will be bound to a promise,” and a “statement or promise made by such a declaration.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1099 (7th ed.1999). See also Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968) (stating “[a]n oath may be undertaken by any unequivocal act in the presence of an officer authorized to administer oaths by which the declarant knowingly attests the truth of a statement and assumes the obligation of an oath”).
Section 1.01(5), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that “[t]he word ‘oath’ includes affirmations.” The claimant’s signed notice of election to be exempt contained a statement in which the claimant affirmed that the information contained on the form was true, and he bound himself to the promise that he would secure workers’ compensation benefits for himself. The claimant, therefore, took an oath as section 440.05(3) requires, and the JCC erred in ruling that the notice of election to be exempt was invalid.
Accordingly, we REVERSE.
VAN NORTWICK, POLSTON and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.S.L. Constr. Co. v. Eliyahu Levy and Ramona Levy, 994 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…iding that a document may be verified by notarized oath or affirmation or by written declaration stating “[u]nder penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true”); Battle v. Gentry, 898 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (concluding that “a statement in which [a] claimant affirmed that the information contained on [a] form was true,” constitutes an oath); Theoc v. State, 832 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (confirming that a statement mad…
-
Collins v. Escambia Roof Masters & CNA Ins., 908 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…CURIAM. The claimant is not entitled to recover workers’ compensation benefits from the employer/carrier because the claimant filed a valid notice of election to be exempt from the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See Battle v. Gentry, 898 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); § 440.10(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Therefore, the JCC’s ruling is affirmed. AFFIRMED. KAHN, C.J., BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)