Share This Article:
In much of workers' compensation across America, benefits are delivered to injured workers administratively. There is an accident or illness, the employer is notified, and either that employer or an insurance company with which it has contracted begins delivering benefits to the injured worker. The majority of workers' compensation accidents or illnesses are in this category. There are some, however, that become disputes.
In many states, there is a single workers' compensation regulatory agency. That agency handles the regulation of those insurance carriers, the reporting of injuries, and the documentation of expenditures. Those agencies also have an adjudicatory function through which the cases that become disputes can also be heard and decided. In Florida, that adjudicatory function is separated completely from the regulatory side of workers' compensation. In Florida, the Division of Workers' Compensation handles the broad regulatory function, and the Office of Judge of Compensation Claims handles only the mediation and adjudication of disputes.
To begin that Florida adjudication process, the injured worker files a petition for benefits, or PFB. This is stated in Section 440.192, Fla. Stat.:
"Any employee may, for any benefit that is ripe, due, and owing, file with the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims a petition for benefits which meets the requirements of this section."
The Petition is a method for seeking benefits in Florida workers' compensation. That Petition is required to provide:
"A detailed description of the injury and cause of the injury, including the location of the occurrence and the date or dates of the accident." Section 440.192(2)(c), Fla. Stat.
The location of the accident is a critical element of the petition. Because, Section 440.25(4)(d) requires that
"The final hearing shall be held within 210 days after receipt of the petition for benefits in the county where the injury occurred."
For that legal requirement to be fulfilled, the case must be assigned appropriately when the petition is filed. For that assignment to be correct, the injured worker must accurately state in the petition where the accident occurred.
If the parties to a case later agree to hold the hearing elsewhere, that is in an alternate venue, the statute permits that, if:
"authorized by the judge of compensation claims in the county where the injury occurred."
That is, the parties may change the site of hearing to a different geographic location, but that agreement is dependent upon the judge in the presumptive (initial) venue agreeing with that change in venue. The parties are not free, before instigating the case with a petition, to agree to some particular venue and acquire an assignment there by misrepresenting where the accident occurred. The parties may later stipulate to a change, but that is not dispositive. The Judge of Compensation Claims may approve or deny such a stipulation. See Rodas v. Commercial Forming Corp., 976 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
There is also provision for assignment of a location for trial, for "venue" if the accident did not occur in Florida.
"If the injury occurred outside the state . . . then the final hearing may be held in the county of the employer’s residence or place of business, or in any other county of the state that will, in the discretion of the Deputy Chief Judge, be the most convenient for a hearing."
Another provision of the Florida law is worthy of consideration in regard to venue. Section 440.105(4)(b) provides
"(b) It shall be unlawful for any person: 1. 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."
Making false statements in either pursuing or defending benefits in Florida workers' compensation is illegal. It is "insurance fraud," and is punishable under the law. Depending upon the value of the benefits sought, which are connected to the false statement, it is a first, second, or third degree felony as described in Section 440.105(4)(f). All are felonies. Making false statements regarding claims is potentially a serious situation.
Why is venue important? Because the statute says so. The statute says the hearing shall occur in a particular location. But, proceeding in the wrong venue can lead to wasted time and money.
The appellate court reversed a denial of a motion for change of venue in Cenvill Communities Inc. v. Pierre, 393 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). There, a party had sought a change of venue asserting similar statutory language regarding venue. After denying the motion to correct venue, the workers' compensation judge heard the case, over objection, and entered a final order. The objecting party then appealed the decision. The appellate court concluded that because "there was no evidence nor agreement to allow the hearing to be held in" that venue, the decision was reversed. The parties had to try the case a second time in the correct venue.
Venue, that is the "choice of venue for workers' compensation hearings is a matter of legislative decision." See Chittick v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 403 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is a legislative decision that can be changed. However, the change has to occur as the legislature has allowed. That is, with the agreement of the parties and the approval of the judge in the county where the accident occurred. The initially assigned judge is responsible for ultimately deciding whether to approve or deny the parties agreement to change the venue.
If an injured worker misrepresents the location of an accident in filing a petition, that misrepresentation may be criminal. However, it may also be a simple mistake. Upon discovery of a misstatement of the location of accident, that misstatement should be brought to the attention of all the parties by a party filing a motion (Rule 60Q6.115(1) - "Any request for an order or for other relief shall be by motion"). Or, that matter could be brought to their attention by the assigned judge or Deputy Chief Judge by an order to show cause.
When the parties are thus on notice of an error, it should become quickly clear whether a simple mistake has occurred. In the event that some mistaken misstatement has been made, this is the moment at which it is acknowledged and withdrawn. If the misstatement is not acknowledged as a mistake and withdrawn, then someone might conclude that the misstatement is not a simple error, but an intentional misrepresentation. Regardless of the motivation for a misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation has no place in litigation generally, and is illegal in pursuit of workers' compensation benefits.
This is not an issue of convenience. That is, it is not permissible to make misrepresentation of the county where the accident occurred because that misrepresentation would result in a venue more convenient to someone in the litigation.
Beyond the issue of legality, the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct provide that a lawyer "shall not knowingly" make a false statement of fact (such as where an accident occurred) or law to a tribunal." Rule 4-3.3. Furthermore, a lawyer may not "fail to disclose a material fact (where the accident actually occurred). By making an honest mistake as to the location of a workers' compensation accident, a lawyer is not violating this rule. However, if the representation is not an honest mistake, acknowledged and corrected upon discovery, then seemingly the rule has been violated. That, of course, would be a determination for The Florida Bar however.
The processing, mediating, and adjudicating of Florida workers' compensation claims is delegated by the Florida Legislature to the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims. In that delegation, the "enabling statute" of this administrative process, the legislature has delineated duties, rights, and procedures. It is incumbent upon those seeking and defending benefits, and the judges appointed under Chapter 440, to understand and abide by those legislative directions.
AI california case management case management focus claims cms compensability compliance courts covid do you know the rule exclusive remedy florida FMLA glossary check health care Healthcare iowa leadership maryland medical medicare minnesota NCCI new jersey new york ohio osha pennsylvania Safety state info technology tennessee texas violence virginia WDYT west virginia what do you think women's history month workers' comp 101 workers' recovery workers' compensation contact information Workplace Safety Workplace Violence
Read Also
About The Author
About The Author
-
Judge David Langham
David Langham is the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims at the Division of Administrative Hearings. He has been involved in workers’ compensation for over 25 years as an attorney, an adjudicator, and administrator. He has delivered hundreds of professional lectures, published numerous articles on workers’ compensation in a variety of publications, and is a frequent blogger on Florida Workers’ Compensation Adjudication. David is a founding director of the National Association of Workers’ Compensation Judiciary and the Professional Mediation Institute, and is involved in the Southern Association of Workers’ Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) and the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC). He is a vocal advocate of leveraging technology and modernizing the dispute resolution processes of workers’ compensation.
More by This Author
- Jun 05, 2023
- Judge David Langham
- May 20, 2023
- Judge David Langham
Read More
- May 15, 2024
- James Moore
- May 07, 2024
- NCCI
- May 06, 2024
- Kim Wiswell
- Apr 30, 2024
- Tanisha Dilbert
- Apr 27, 2024
- Gary Wickert
- Apr 17, 2024
- NCCI