Pinnacle Benefits, Inc. and Craftwork, Inc. v. Alby
30 FLW D2552
The fraud defense as enunciated in Sections 440.09(4) and 440.105(40(b), Florida Statutes (2000), requires a showing of knowing or intentional activity. Whether or not a claimant has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any acts or omissions that would trigger this defense is a question of fact. Court determined that there was competent and substantial evidence to support the JCC’s order on this issue.
JCC did not err in accepting the opinions of an EMA that were contrary to the opinions of the authorized treating physicians. The JCC determines the credibility of witnesses including the claimant. In this case, the record supported the JCC’s finding as to the EMA medical opinions, which are presumptively correct absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. As to the employer/carrier’s argument that the EMA’s report was untimely completed, the court could find no prejudice arising therefrom and accordingly, denied the argument. Because the JCC properly rejected the fraud defense and exercised his authority in accepting the EMA’s opinions over those of other physicians, the JCC’s order was affirmed on appeal.