Weaver v. MBM

936 So. 2d 732, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 14004, 2006 WL 2402796
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 22, 2006·No. No. 1D05-674·Published

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

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

936 So. 2d 732 (Weaver v. MBM) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sasso v. Ram Property Management
431 So. 2d 204 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Medina v. Gulf Coast Linen Services
825 So. 2d 1018 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)