CRUZ ELENA ALVAREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
UNICCO AND TRAVELERS, 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 denial of workers' compensation benefits where claimant made knowing and intentional misrepresentations to secure benefits, rejecting argument that benefits should be awarded for the period before the misrepresentation was discovered.
A claimant who knowingly and intentionally makes false or misleading statements to secure workers' compensation benefits is not entitled to benefits even for the period before the misrepresentation is discovered.
Cruz Elena Alvarez claimed workplace accidents on February 28, 2003 and January 1, 2004, and sought workers' compensation benefits. The judge of compe…
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 Worker'S Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Cruz Elena Alvarez, who claimed sustaining workplace accidents on February 28, 2003 and on January 1, 2004, appeals an order of the judge of compensation claims which denied her claim for benefits on the ground that she knowingly and intentionally made a false or misleading statement for the purpose of securing workers’ compensation benefits. See §§ 440.09(4) and 440.105(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (2003). Claimant argues that she is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits until the date that the judge of compensation claims found that she did make a knowing and intentional misrepresentation or misstatement. Alvarez, who does not dispute the judge’s findings, cites no authority for holding that the judge erred in this case in not awarding benefits for the period prior to the entry of the order. Further, neither this court’s decision in Horizons Painting v. Lessard, 688 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), nor our decision in Pavilion Apartments v. Wetherington, 943 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), require an award by the judge of compensation claims for a period preceding the determination of a violation of section 440.09(4).
Accordingly, the order of the judge of compensation claims is AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parodi v. Fla. Contracting Co., Inc., 16 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…or MCC that are warranted and later proven to be correct, the care obtained by Claimant (even if medically necessary) would not be compensable or awardable. See § 440.13(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (2003) (defining “compensable”); see also Alvarez v. Unicco, 958 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Here, because Dr. Benezette and Dr. Kirkpatrick were authorized by operation of section 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), for the care provided during the E/C’s wrongful denial of benefits, the JCC should not have excluded…
-
Carroso v. State, 129 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…required a return of or restitution for benefits already lawfully paid prior to the claimant’s misrepresentation. Thus, the sanction under section 440.09(4)(a) turns off the tap from which workers’ compensation benefits flow.5 See Alvarez v. Unicco, 958 So. 2d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding judge of compensation claims is not required to order payment of benefits for “a period preceding the determination of a violation of section 440.09(4)”). IY. THE ERRORS ARISING FROM THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 440.…
-
Leggett v. Barnett Marine, Inc., 167 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…of when entitlement to such benefits would have accrued had there been no fraud and had the JCC reached the merits of the pending claim, which he was not required to do on account of the finding of fraud. Finally, we distinguish Alvarez v. Unicco, 958 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). It does not completely resolve the issue here because it dealt with the denial of “benefits for the period prior to the entry of the order [finding fraud],” but it did not make clear whether the disputed period of benefits relat…
Authorities Cited
- Horizons Painting & PCA Solutions, Inc. v. Lessard, 688 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Pavilion Apts. & Claims Ctr. v. Wetherington, 943 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)