Eatmon v. Bonagura

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eatmon v. Bonagura

590 So. 2d 4, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11882, 1991 WL 248683

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1600

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 590 So. 2d 4 (Eatmon v. Bonagura) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eatmon v. Bonagura, 590 So. 2d 4, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11882, 1991 WL 248683 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order of the judge of compensation claims dismissing the claimant’s wage loss claim. When a claimant invokes the fifth amendment, the judge of compensation claims should fashion an appropriate sanction that relieves the resulting prejudice to the employer and carrier’s defense. Dismissal, when appropriate, is one available sanction. Village Inn Restaurant v. Aridi, 543 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the judge in determining that dismissal of the claimant’s wage loss claim was the appropriate sanction to relieve prejudice resulting from the claimant’s refusal, based on invocation of the fifth amendment, to produce the documents at issue.

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order of the judge of compensation claims dismissing the claimant’s wage loss claim. When a claimant invokes the fifth amendment, the judge of compensation claims should fashion an appropriate sanction that relieves the resulting prejudice to the employer and carrier’s defense. Dismissal, when appropriate, is one available sanction. Village Inn Restaurant v. Aridi, 543 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the judge in determining that dismissal of the claimant’s wage loss claim was the appropriate sanction to relieve prejudice resulting from the claimant’s refusal, based on invocation of the fifth amendment, to produce the documents at issue.

AFFIRMED.

ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 4, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11882, 1991 WL 248683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eatmon-v-bonagura-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack