Disconnect between Form, Statute Merits 2nd Look at Florida Claimant’s Marital Income

Case File

A Florida court acknowledged that the affidavit failed to disclose all marital income required by section 440.25(5)(b) and Rule 9.180. However, it also noted that the claimant completed the OJCC's prescribed form exactly as written, and that the form did not request all information required by the statute and rule.

Case

Clark v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 1D2026-0971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 10/07/26, unpublished)

What Happened?

During the pendency of a workers' compensation appeal, the Judge of Compensation Claims denied the claimant's petition relief from the cost of the record on appeal. The claimant sought review.

Rule of Law

Section 440.25(5)(b), Florida Statutes, notes that "[f]ailure to state in the affidavit all assets and income, including marital assets and income, shall be grounds for denying the petition with prejudice." Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(g)(3)(D) details, "With the verified petition to be relieved of costs, the appellant must file a sworn financial affidavit listing income and assets, including marital income and assets, and expenses and liabilities."

What the Court Said

The court reversed the JCC. According to the court, although the claimant's financial affidavit disclosed her husband's $1,700 per month contribution to household expenses, her admission that he earned $3,200 per month revealed that she did not satisfy all the requirements of statute or comply with the applicable appellate rule.

According to the claimant, "marital assets and income" were not solicited by the affidavit form suggested by the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Instead, the form stated, "If anyone contributes to your income or helps pay your expenses, complete the following," then designated only three fields: "Name of Contributor; Relationship to Claimant/Appellant; Total Monthly Amount of Contribution."

The claimant completed every field on the official form exactly as written.

"In other words, the form provided by OJCC does not include all the necessary information required by the statute," the court wrote.

Given the inconsistency between the statutory requirements and the OJCC's prescribed affidavit form, along with the claimant's sworn testimony regarding her spouse's income and lack of access to those funds, the court concluded that the denial of the petition warranted reconsideration.

"The totality of circumstances in this case, however, includes not just the affidavit but also the discrepancy between statute and the OJCC's form—not to mention Claimant's sworn testimony of her spouse's income (which might cure its absence on the affidavit), her testimony that his income was wholly inaccessible to her, and the JCC's own finding that the workers' compensation benefits at issue would accrue solely to Claimant and not her spouse," the court wrote.

Verdict: The court reversed the order denying relief from appellate costs and remanded the matter for further consideration.

Takeaway

Where a claimant completes the OJCC's prescribed affidavit form, and the form itself omits information required by statute and rule, denial of indigency relief may warrant reconsideration when the missing information was otherwise disclosed in the record.

Share This Article: