SIDNEY TYRONE RATLIFF, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Agustin Arreola v. Admin. Concepts & S. Eagle Ins. Co., 17 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
  …. § 440.09(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). Whether a claimant has violated section 440.105 is a factual determination to be made by the JCC, which is reviewed by this court for competent substantial evidence. Paulson v. Dixie County Emergency Med. Servs., 936 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “It matters not that other persuasive evidence, if accepted by the JCC, might have supported a contrary ruling.” Pinnacle Benefits, Inc. v. Alby, 913 So. 2d 756, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In deciding this issue, the JCC ha…
• Candelario Carrillo v. Case Eng'g, Inc., 53 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …inued palliative medical treatment at the employer’s expense would have been extinguished in the present proceeding. The medical benefits were not being paid in “a different workers’ compensation case.” Paulson v. Dixie County Emergency Med. Servs., 936 So. 2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The fact that the judge of compensation claims even addressed the fraud defense, after finding proof of the claim inadequate, attests to the independent significance a finding of fraud or misrepresentation would have had;…
• Pinellas Cnty. Transit Auth. & Commercial Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Annita C. Williams Jackson (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
  …a work-caused accident and injury occurred. Nor did the E/C’s misrepresentation defense foreclose Claimant from qualifying for benefits stemming from the second, separate workplace accident in 2022. See Paulson v. Dixie Cnty. Emergency Med. Servs., 936 So. 2d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that § 440.09(1)’s plain language applies the prohibition on benefits when a claimant violates § 440.105 only “to a specific accident” in which fraud was committed and not to a subsequent workplace accident). The…

Authorities Cited

• Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004)