Does Providing a False Social Security Number to an Employer Result in Forfeiture of Employee's WC Benefits?
Other than perhaps that of attorney's fees, probably the hottest topic in Florida workers' compensation law over the last few years has been that of "fraud." Section 440.105(4)(b)1, Fla. Stat., makes it unlawful for "any person" to "knowingly make, or cause to be made, any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit or payment under this chapter." In turn, §440.09(4)(a), Fla. Stat., requires a complete forfeiture of any further workers' compensation benefits - both indemnity and medical - upon a judicial determination that the employee "has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s.440.105 or any criminal act for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits."
In addition, however, §440.105(4)(b)9, Fla. Stat., makes it unlawful for any person to "knowingly present or cause to be presented any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement to any person as evidence of identity for the purpose of obtaining employment or filing or supporting a claim for workers' compensation benefits" (Emphasis added). So what if an employee is injured on the job and the employer/carrier later discover that the employee provided a false Social Security number to the employer when he commenced his employment? Does he forfeit his entitlement to workers' compensation benefits as a result?
In Carrillo v. Employee Leasing Solutions, decided on 7/7/2005, JCC Beck said no, reasoning that §440.09(4)(a) expressly requires that the violation of §440.105 be done "for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits." Mr. Carrillo, said Judge Beck, had provided a false Social Security number not "for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits," but for the purpose of securing employment.
"Not so fast", say James F. Kidd and Rick Blystone, Florida attorneys and the authors of this excellent article on the subject from the October 2007 edition of the Florida Bar Journal. The authors say that under Judge Beck's "conjunctive" reading of §440.105(4)(b)9, the only time an employee could be found to have violated the statute would be in cases where the employee has provided false evidence of his identity after the occurrence of an accident, such as when he seeks post-accident medical attention, since that is the only time he could have made the false statement of identity "for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits."
Such a result is contrary to legislative intent, say the authors. They point out that §440.105(4)(b)9 is worded differently than the other subsections in §440.105(4)(b) and that subsection 9 is violated when an employee makes a false statement of identity either for the purpose of obtaining employment or for the purpose of securing workers' compensation benefits. Therefore, they reason, "it is fair to assume that §440.105 (4)(b)9 was intended to preclude workers’ compensation benefits to injured workers at the moment a worker is found to have misrepresented his or her authorized status and/or identity to obtain employment."
We won't get an answer to this question from the First DCA from the Carrillo case. Although Judge Beck's decision was appealed by the employer/carrier (Case No.1D05-3686), the case was settled while on appeal.
