Mcarthur v. Mental Health Care Inc./summit Claims Ctr., No. 1D09-4299.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | WETHERELL, J |
| Citation | 35 So.3d 105 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D09-4299. |
| Decision Date | 14 May 2010 |
| Parties | Sherri McARTHUR, Appellant,v.MENTAL HEALTH CARE, INC./SUMMIT CLAIMS CENTER, Appellees. |
35 So.3d 105
Sherri McARTHUR, Appellant,
v.
MENTAL HEALTH CARE, INC./SUMMIT CLAIMS CENTER, Appellees.
No. 1D09-4299.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
May 14, 2010.
Ben H. Cristal and Dixie T. Switzer of the Cristal Law Group, Tampa, for Appellees.
WETHERELL, J.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Claimant seeks review of a final order denying all of her claims for benefits pursuant to the so-called “fraud defense” in section 440.09(4), Florida Statutes (2007). Claimant raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in finding that Claimant committed fraud by failing to disclose the extent of her prior injuries and medical care; 2) whether the JCC erred in not ruling on Claimant's claim that the employer/carrier (E/C) and its attorney committed fraud in their handling of this matter; and 3) whether Claimant is entitled to a one-time change in physician notwithstanding the finding of fraud. We affirm the first and third issues without discussion, and we affirm the second issue for the reasons that follow.
The final hearing in this case addressed six petitions for benefits filed by Claimant over the course of a year. One of the petitions-the fourth of six-sought a determination that “the employer/carrier and/or its agents/attorney committed workers' compensation fraud by failing to disclose a complete medical history and/or misrepresenting the claimant's medical history to her treating doctors for the purposes of denying her workers' compensation claim.” At the final hearing, in response to the JCC's inquiry regarding the precise relief that Claimant was requesting in this petition, Claimant's attorney argued that the E/C should be penalized just as a claimant would-the denial of all benefits-or, alternatively, that the E/C should be stripped of its defenses. Claimant's attorney acknowledged that chapter 440 did not specifically provide for that sanction, but argued, in effect, that the JCC had inherent authority to make findings on the issue of fraud by the E/C and its attorney and impose appropriate sanctions. The JCC did not make any findings on this issue in the final order.
Section 440.105(4)(b)1. provides that it is unlawful for “any person ... [t]o knowingly make, or cause to be made, any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Superior Fence & Rail Of North Fla. v. Lucas, No. 5D09-4213.
...intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation such that the intervenor “will either gain or lose by the direct legal 35 So.3d 105 operation and effect of the judgment.” Harbor Specialty Ins. Co. v. Schwartz, 932 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Union Cent. Life ......
-
Gomez Lawn Serv., Inc. v. Hartford, No. 1D12–0302.
...days. This Court's reasoning in Bend v. Shamrock Services, 59 So.3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So.3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), both have application here. In Bend, this Court explained: We begin our analysis by asserting the necessary and oft-repeat......
-
Bend v. Shamrock Serv., No. 1D10–0019.
...by statute and a court may not read into chapter 440 authority not granted to the JCCs. See, e.g., McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So.3d 105, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Significantly, nothing in chapter 440 allows a JCC to provide the remedy of voiding a policy ab initio; rather, a r......
-
Bend v. Shamrock Serv.,
CASE NO. 1D10-0019
...by statute and a court may not read into chapter 440 authority not granted to the JCCs. See, e.g., McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So. 3d 105, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Significantly, nothing in chapter 440 allows a JCC to provide the remedy of voiding a policy ab initio; rather, a ......
-
Superior Fence & Rail Of North Fla. v. Lucas, No. 5D09-4213.
...intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation such that the intervenor “will either gain or lose by the direct legal 35 So.3d 105 operation and effect of the judgment.” Harbor Specialty Ins. Co. v. Schwartz, 932 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Union Cent. Life ......
-
Gomez Lawn Serv., Inc. v. Hartford, No. 1D12–0302.
...days. This Court's reasoning in Bend v. Shamrock Services, 59 So.3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So.3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), both have application here. In Bend, this Court explained: We begin our analysis by asserting the necessary and oft-repeat......
-
Bend v. Shamrock Serv., No. 1D10–0019.
...by statute and a court may not read into chapter 440 authority not granted to the JCCs. See, e.g., McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So.3d 105, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Significantly, nothing in chapter 440 allows a JCC to provide the remedy of voiding a policy ab initio; rather, a r......
-
Bend v. Shamrock Serv.,
CASE NO. 1D10-0019
...by statute and a court may not read into chapter 440 authority not granted to the JCCs. See, e.g., McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So. 3d 105, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Significantly, nothing in chapter 440 allows a JCC to provide the remedy of voiding a policy ab initio; rather, a ......