LUCILLE AUSTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
LIQUID DISTRIBUTORS, INC., AND FRANK CEDENO, 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.
Affirmed dismissal of personal injury action where plaintiff made material misrepresentations about her medical history in discovery, forfeiting her right to proceed due to fraud on the court.
A plaintiff who makes material misrepresentations and omissions about her medical history and injuries in interrogatories and depositions forfeits her right to proceed with a personal injury action.
[1] A plaintiff who makes material misrepresentations and omissions about her medical history and injuries in discovery materials forfeits her right to proceed with a persona…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 system that depends on an adversary's ability to uncover falsehoods is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct must be discouraged in the strongest possible way.”
Court explaining why fraud on the court must be strongly discouraged to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Lucille Austin filed a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident on June 28, 2001. She made misrepresentations and omissions about he…
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 Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a personal injury case for fraud on the court. We affirm on the basis of the trial judge’s order which correctly concludes as follows:
It is well-settled law that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding is not permitted to continue to employ the very institution she has subverted to achieve her ends. Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Where a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition, those misrepresentations and omissions go to the heart of her claim and subvert the integrity of her action. When the extensive nature of the plaintiffs past medical history belies her claim that she had forgotten or was confused, she thereby forfeits her right to proceed with her personal injury action. Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Since the record evidence in the case at hand clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Lucille Austin deliberately attempted to mislead and deceive the defendants about matters which strike at the very heart of her claim, i.e., her injuries stemming from the automobile accident of June 28, 2001, this court simply cannot condone Lucille Austin’s lack of candor. “A system that depends on an adversary’s ability to uncover falsehoods is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct must be discouraged in the strongest possible way.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…o adjudicate the central issue in the case: whether her injuries resulted from the subject accident. When a party lies about matters bearing directly on the issue of damages, dismissal is an appropriate sanction. See Austin v. Liquid Distribs. Inc., 928 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Amato v. Intindola, 854 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 So. 2d 572, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Bologna’s failure to disclose that she had received multiple treatments for the same s…
-
Saewitz v. Saewitz, 79 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…or any of its employees. In short, whatever lapse — legal or ethical — may be laid at the feet of defense counsel, it is true as well that counsel for the daughters was never affirmatively misled by the defense. Cf. Austin v. Liquid Distribs., Inc., 928 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (upholding dismissal of personal injury case in finding the plaintiff committed fraud on the court by deliberately misleading and deceiving the defendants). Finally, the precise identification of each asset at issue was know…
-
Diaz v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 196 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…position that “‘the appellate court must fully recognize the superior vantage point of the trial judge and should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion’ ”). See also Austin v. Liquid Distrib., Inc., 928 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reaffirming that when a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition, those misrepresentations and omissions go to the heart of her claim and subvert…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)