Rustic Lodge v. Escobar

Decision Date16 April 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-2695.,98-2695.
Citation729 So.2d 1014
PartiesRUSTIC LODGE and Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Peter A. ESCOBAR, Appellee.
CourtFlorida 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.

PER CURIAM.

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
12 cases
  • Patronis v. United Ins. Co. of Am., No. 1D18-2114
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 3, 2020
    ...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)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 16, 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 hi......
  • Wolford v. PINNACOL ASSUR., 01CA2415.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • May 22, 2003
    ...(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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT