Weaver v. MBM

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weaver v. MBM

936 So. 2d 732, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14004, 2006 WL 2402796

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-674

StatusPublished

This text of 936 So. 2d 732 (Weaver v. MBM) 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

Weaver v. MBM, 936 So. 2d 732, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14004, 2006 WL 2402796 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Charles Weaver argues that sections [733]*733440.09(4) and 440.105, which allow a judge of compensation claims to determine whether a claimant has committed fraud, are facially unconstitutional because they violate a claimant’s right to equal protection of the law. Essentially, Weaver argues that these statutes deprive claimant of the procedures available to carriers accused of fraud under section 440.105. He also argues that these statutes impose stricter penalties on claimants accused of fraud than on carriers accused of fraud under section 440.105. We find that even if any classification scheme is created by these statutes, such rationally advances the legitimate governmental objective of eliminating fraud. See Medina v. Gulf Coast Linen Servs., 825 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Sasso v. Ram Prop. Mgmt., 431 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We also find Weaver’s other arguments on appeal lack merit. Accordingly, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, C.J., BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Charles Weaver argues that sections [733]*733440.09(4) and 440.105, which allow a judge of compensation claims to determine whether a claimant has committed fraud, are facially unconstitutional because they violate a claimant’s right to equal protection of the law. Essentially, Weaver argues that these statutes deprive claimant of the procedures available to carriers accused of fraud under section 440.105. He also argues that these statutes impose stricter penalties on claimants accused of fraud than on carriers accused of fraud under section 440.105. We find that even if any classification scheme is created by these statutes, such rationally advances the legitimate governmental objective of eliminating fraud. See Medina v. Gulf Coast Linen Servs., 825 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Sasso v. Ram Prop. Mgmt., 431 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We also find Weaver’s other arguments on appeal lack merit. Accordingly, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.

KAHN, C.J., BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

936 So. 2d 732, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14004, 2006 WL 2402796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-mbm-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack