Rustic Lodge v. Escobar
Decision Date | 16 April 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 98-2695.,98-2695. |
Citation | 729 So.2d 1014 |
Parties | RUSTIC LODGE and Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Peter A. ESCOBAR, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mary Ann Stiles and Rayford H. Taylor of Stiles, Taylor and Grace, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.
William P. Levens, Tampa, for Appellee.
We affirm the order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC), holding that section 440.09(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), which bars the recovery of compensation benefits upon proof that a claimant engaged in certain prohibited activities, is substantive legislation and thus cannot be retroactively applied.
Claimant, Peter A. Escobar, was injured in an industrial accident on November 4, 1990. In 1994, knowing that Escobar was under investigation for submitting fraudulent requests for wage-loss benefits, the employer and carrier, Rustic Lodge and Associated Industries Insurance Company (respectively, the E/C), settled the indemnity portion of the case, preserving Escobar's entitlement to necessary medical benefits. On November 21, 1996, Escobar pled nolo contendere to workers' compensation fraud, perjury and grand theft, whereupon the circuit court withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced him to 18 months' probation and 50 hours of community service.
Escobar filed petitions for medical benefits in 1996 and 1997. The E/C denied each, pursuant to section 440.09(4), which took effect January 1, 1994, and provides:
An employee shall not be entitled to compensation or benefits under this chapter if any administrative hearing officer, court, or jury convened in this state determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits.
Section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), provides, among other things, that it is unlawful for a claimant to knowingly make false, fraudulent or misleading statements for the purpose of obtaining benefits. The E/C contends that the above provision was procedural or remedial, because it simply redefined the procedure by which an E/C can seek a remedy for a claimant's fraudulent conduct, as previously outlined in section 440.37(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), which provided:
Any person damaged as a result of a violation of any provision of this subsection [dealing with misrepresentation and fraudulent activities], when there has been a criminal adjudication of guilt, shall have a cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Patronis v. United Ins. Co. of Am., No. 1D18-2114
...to be "simply a remedial clarification of legislative intent" because it significantly altered damages). Cf. Rustic Lodge v. Escobar , 729 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that "[r]emedial statutes simply confer or change a remedy in furtherance of existing rights and do not de......
-
Antunez v. Whitfield, No. 4D06-4420 (Fla. App. 1/2/2008)
...to attorney's fees did not remove a substantive right because a right to fees does not vest until judgment); Rustic Lodge v. Escobar, 729 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ("Remedial statutes simply confer or change a remedy in furtherance of existing rights and do not deny a claimant h......
-
Antunez v. Whitfield
...to attorney's fees did not remove a substantive right because a right to fees does not vest until judgment); Rustic Lodge v. Escobar, 729 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ("Remedial statutes simply confer or change a remedy in furtherance of existing rights and do not deny a claimant hi......
-
Wolford v. PINNACOL ASSUR., 01CA2415.
...(TTD benefits) resulted in a forfeiture of "all" compensation under the Act, including her PPD benefits. See Rustic Lodge v. Escobar, 729 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999)(statutory provision that "[a]n employee shall not be entitled to compensation or benefits" mandates that a claima......