Employer's Fraud Defense Rendered Moot by Subsequent Settlement
Jorge Diaz, an injured worker, was accused by the employer/carrier of committing workers' compensation fraud by submitting false mileage reimbursement requests. The Judge of Compensation Claims agreed to "bifurcate" the issues, that is, to conduct a hearing where the issues would be limited solely to whether Diaz was guilty of committing fraud and therefore whether any further workers' compensation benefits would be barred pursuant to §440.09(4), Fla. Stat. In this order, the JCC concluded that Diaz in fact was not guilty of fraud, and the employer/carrier sought review of that decision by way of a petition for writ of certiorari to the First District Court of Appeal.
In this decision rendered on 8/8/2006, the First DCA denied the petition, but "without prejudice to appellants seeking review after the Judge of Compensation Claims issues a final order on the merits of the claims pending below." Later, rather than proceeding to a hearing on the merits, the parties settled the pending petition for benefits, as reflected in this stipulation and order from the JCC dated 2/13/2007. The employer/carrier then sought to raise the denial of its fraud defense on appeal for the second time.
But in Isol Auto Supply v. Diaz, decided on 9/12/2007, the First DCA once again refused to consider the employer/carrier's fraud defense on its merits. In the stipulation, the parties agreed, among other things, that "all issues are resolved except as to the amount of attorney's fees and costs." This agreement, said the court, rendered the fraud defense moot.
