Cases from cite.case.law:

RENTE, v. ORANGE COUNTY BOCC, 263 So. 3d 294 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . would note that the E/C neither pled nor pursued a fraud defense pursuant to sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 . . .

TECO ENERGY, INC. v. K. WILLIAMS,, 234 So. 3d 816 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Code R. 60Q-6.113(2)(h) requires, ”[a]ny defense raised pursuant to Sections 440.09(4)(a) and 440.105 . . .

CAL- MAINE FOODS BROADSPIRE, v. HOWARD,, 225 So. 3d 898 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Not all prohibited acts in section 440.105 entail a “fraud” element. See § 440.105(4)(b)2.-3., Fla. . . . Determining whether there has been a violation of section 440.105(4)(b) requires a two-part inquiry: . . . The purpose of section 440.105(4) is to sanction “any person” who, with the requisite intent, .commits . . . Section 440.105(4)(b) declares that it “shall be unlawful for any person:” 1. . . . Furthermore, such an application is contrary to a plain reading of section 440.105(4). . . .

LEVY COUNTY TRANSIT GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, v. KOKENZIE,, 220 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . benefits and rejecting the affirmative defense of misrepresentation under paragraphs 440.09(4)(a) and 440.105 . . .

DELGADO, v. CITY CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC. FCCI, 220 So. 3d 529 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . facts and strongly suggested that the attorneys engaged in collusion to commit fraud under section 440.105 . . .

CITY OF HIALEAH CMS, v. BONO,, 207 So.3d 1030 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Claims (JCC) rejecting their affirmative defense of misrepresentation under sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 . . . the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit or payment” under the Workers’ Compensation Law. § 440.105 . . . Determining that there has been a violation of section 440.105(4) requires a two-part inquiry, encompassing . . . these statements, he knew they were false ... then the statements fall within the scope of section 440.105 . . .

SMITH, v. STATE, 211 So. 3d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . be commenced within 5 years after it is committed. (11) A prosecution for a felony violation of ss. 440.105 . . .

THG RENTALS SALES OF CLEARWATER, INC. v. C. ARNOLD,, 196 So. 3d 485 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 440.105, Florida Statutes, makes it illegal for any person to “knowingly make, or cause to be . . . for an employee found to have “knowingly dr intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . under • rule 60Q-6.113(2)(h), which provides: Any defense 'raised pursuant to Sections 440.09(4)(a) and 440.105 . . .

CORY FAIRBANKS MAZDA PMA v. MINOR,, 192 So. 3d 596 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 440.105(b), Fla. . . .

CASTELLANOS, v. NEXT DOOR COMPANY,, 192 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016)

. . . filed a response to the petition, denying the claim based on sections 440.09(4) (intentional acts) and 440.105 . . . See § 440.105(3)(c), Fla. Stat. . . . First District Court of Appeal recently concluded in an as-applied constitutional challenge to sections 440.105 . . . association, petition, and right to form contracts, and held "that the criminal penalties of section 440.105 . . .

MILES, v. CITY OF EDGEWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED GOVERNMENTAL CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, 190 So. 3d 171 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Claimant challenges the constitutionality of sections 440.105 and 440.34, Florida Statutes, which limit . . . that even if he accepted them as evidence, his ruling would not change.- Legal Background Paragraph' 440.105 . . . 440.34, regarding its effect on these First Amendment rights when taken in conjunction with section 440.105 . . . Because section 440.105(3)(c), Florida Statutes, makes it a crime for an attorney to accept a fee that . . . Conclusion • In conclusion, the restrictions in sections 440.105 and 440.34, when applied to a claimant . . .

SCHERER, v. VOLUSIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 171 So. 3d 135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Similarly, sub-subsection 440.105(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2014), makes it unlawful for an insurance . . .

LEGGETT, v. BARNETT MARINE, INC. U. S., 167 So. 3d 480 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . on the grounds that Claimant made misrepresentations forfeiting benefits under sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . . entire claim (including the orthopedic evaluation), asserting a fraud defense under sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4)(b)(l) states it is illegal for any person to “knowingly make, or cause to be made, . . . Notably, Claimant in this appeal does not challenge the finding that he violated section 440.105(4)(b . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . .

KLINE, v. JRD MANAGEMENT CORP. CCMSI,, 165 So. 3d 812 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . division at DFS for further investigation for what was, in the JCC’s opinion, a violation of section 440.105 . . .

CUENCA, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, 160 So. 3d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See § 440.105(3)(c), Fla. . . .

CORTES- MARTINEZ, v. PALMETTO VEGETABLE CO. LLC, 159 So. 3d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding “that the prohibition on claimant-paid attorney’s fees in section 440.105 . . .

R. CLARK, v. R L CARRIERS, 151 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 440.09(4)(a) provides that an employee who knowingly or intentionally violates subsections 440.105 . . . Under subsections 440.105(4)(b) 1 . — 3., it is unlawful for any person to make, or cause to be made, . . . establish a fraud or misrepresentation defense, an employer or carrier must prove violations of section 440.105 . . . contributed to the JCC’s determination that the E/C sustained its burden of proving violations of section 440.105 . . . following in the parties' pretrial stipulation: Any defense raised pursuant to Sections 440.09(4)(a) and 440.105 . . .

E. RIVAS, v. OASIS OUTSOURCING, INC., 147 So. 3d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 440.105(3)(c), Fla. . . .

VEGA, v. FRS ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATORS,, 145 So. 3d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . finding that Claimant was convicted and adjudicated guilty of workers’ compensation fraud under section 440.105 . . .

STATE v. BROCK,, 138 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Defendant, Francisco Brock, was charged with one count of fraud under section 440.105(4)(b)9, Florida . . . Section 440.105 delineates the prohibited activities, reports, penalties, and limitations of the Workers . . . Section 440.105(4)(b)9 makes it a crime to “present ... any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or . . . After considering the newly-enacted section 440.105(4)(b)9, the Florida Senate Interim Project Report . . . In 2003, section 440.105(4)(b) was amended to add subparagraph nine. . . .

STATE v. HECTOR,, 138 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Defendant Jordan Hector and co-defendant Francisco Brock were charged with one count of fraud under section 440.105 . . .

HAMM, v. PMI EMPLOYEE LEASING, 134 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . This court has previously reversed findings of fraud under section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes, holding . . .

CARROSO, v. STATE, 129 So. 3d 374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 440.105(4), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . Carroso with insurance fraud in the second degree, under sections 440.105(4)(b)(l) and (4)(f)(2), Florida . . . Section 440.105(4)(b)(l) states that it shall be “unlawful” for any person: “To knowingly make, or cause . . . Section 440.105(4)(f) provides the penalties for violating this statute: If the monetary value of any . . . In this appeal, the focus is on section 440.105(4)(f)’s reference to a “monetary value.” . . .

M. OWEN, Jr. v. CITY OF KEY WEST, 118 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Inc., 113 So.3d 1042, 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“We conclude to the extent that sections 440.34 and 440.105 . . .

JACOBSON, v. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., 113 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Claimant challenges the constitutionality of sections 440.105(3) (c) and 440.34 insofar as these sections . . . We conclude to the extent that sections 440.34 and 440.105(3)(c), Florida Statutes, prohibit Claimant . . . Accordingly, as applied here, sections 440.34 and 440.105(3)(c) are unconstitutional. . . . Legal Background Under section 440.105(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), an attorney may be guilty of a . . . We conclude that sections 440.105(3)(c) and 440.34 do not constitute reasonable time, place, or manner . . . I agree that sections 440.105(3)(c) and 440.34are unconstitutional as applied here because the statutes . . .

COLEMAN, v. CIRCLE K. STORES, INC. LLC,, 519 F. App'x 588 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 440.105(4)(b). . . .

MILLER ELECTRIC COMPANY v. OURSLER,, 113 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . and by doing so had forfeited all workers’ compensation benefits, as stated in sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 . . .

GOMEZ LAWN SERVICE, INC. v. THE HARTFORD,, 98 So. 3d 212 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Legislature intended to give the JCC the authority to sanction an E/C or its attorney for violating section 440.105 . . .

LUCAS, v. ADT SECURITY INC. SEDGWICK CMS,, 72 So. 3d 270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying benefits on the ground she violated section 440.105 . . . written statement for the purpose of obtaining or denying any benefit or payment under this chapter.” § 440.105 . . . which were made for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits in violation of section 440.105 . . .

LUCAS, v. ADT SECURITY INC. SEDGWICK CMS,, 65 So. 3d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying benefits on the ground she violated section 440.105 . . . misleading oral or written statement” for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. § 440.105 . . . found could not serve as the predicate for disqualification from benefits under sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. K. RIPPY,, 67 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . terminate Claimant’s entitlement to benefits under chapter 440 on grounds Claimant violated section 440.105 . . . Stat. 440.105(4)(b).” Id. at 766-67. . . . the relief sought was the same as it was in Polston — a determination that Claimant violated section 440.105 . . .

J. BEND, Jr. v. SHAMROCK SERVICES, 59 So. 3d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 440.105(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . Under the mandatory provisions of section 440.105(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), a carrier must report . . . Yet, Zenith evidently did not comply with the mandatory reporting scheme imposed by section 440.105(l . . .

CARRILLO, v. CASE ENGINEERING, INC., 53 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . s attorney’s fees because, in defeating the affirmative defense contemplated by sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . . still payable because he prevailed in resisting the affirmative defense based on sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . . Stat.; § 440.105, Fla. Stat.; and § 440.09(a), Fla. . . . When Case Engineering, Inc., and The Claims Center raised the defense based on sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . . Setting up the fraud defense under sections 440.09 and 440.105 put com-pensability at issue — and did . . .

STEEL DYNAMICS INC. NEW MILLENNIUM LLC, v. MARKHAM,, 46 So. 3d 641 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . purposes here, predicated on the intentional or knowing commission of a criminal offense found in section 440.105 . . . , Florida Statutes, and further, because the criminal offenses contained in section 440.105 are predicated . . .

CASTELLON, v. RC ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES, INC. AIG, 40 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Moreover, section 440.105(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), makes it unlawful for any attorney or other . . . action outside the scope of the JCC’s jurisdiction, it is contrary to the plain language of section 440.105 . . .

McARTHUR, v. MENTAL HEALTH CARE, INC. SUMMIT CLAIMS CENTER,, 35 So. 3d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 440.105(4)(b)l. provides that it is unlawful for “any person ... . . . See § 440.09(4)(a), 440.105(4)®, 440.106, Fla. Stat. . . . The process by which an employee may be sanctioned for violating section 440.105 is set forth in section . . . The process by which an attorney or carrier may be sanctioned for violating section 440.105 is set forth . . . , or agent or other representative of any carrier or rating bureau is determined to have violated s.440.105 . . .

RENE STONE WORK CORPORATION USIS, v. GONZALEZ,, 25 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . all of his 2008 taxable income to the IRS, which, the E/C argued, constituted a violation of section 440.105 . . . Claimant forfeited his rights to all workers’ compensation benefits by allegedly violating section 440.105 . . . motion to amend its pre-trial stipulation to include a misrepresentation defense pursuant to section 440.105 . . .

ROJAS, v. MEDLEY HARDWOODS, INC., 23 So. 3d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . have committed fraud with respect to those (different) benefits, in violation of sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . .

PADILLA, v. COLLINS CONTRACTING,, 22 So. 3d 124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The deputy chief judge cited section 440.105(7), Florida Statutes, as authority for requiring a signed . . . Section 440.105(7), Florida Statutes (2006), does not allow for dismissal when a claimant fails to sign . . . See § 440.105(7), Fla. Stat. (2002); Ch. 2003-412, § 11, at 27, Laws of Fla. . . . personally sign a fraud statement, the dismissal was in error to the extent it relied upon section 440.105 . . .

ARREOLA, v. ADMINISTRATIVE CONCEPTS, 17 So. 3d 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . We are again asked to address the parameters of section 440.105, Florida Statutes, frequently referred . . . and denied all claims under section 440.09, Florida Statutes, on the ground Claimant violated section 440.105 . . . , or misleading statements for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. § 440.105(4)( . . . Whether a claimant has violated section 440.105 is a factual determination to be made by the JCC, which . . . Section 440.105(4)(b)l. does not require that the misrepresentation be material in actuality; rather, . . .

CHANDLER, v. CENTEX ROONEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 15 So. 3d 837 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . allegation that Claimant is no longer entitled to benefits because he violated sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . .

DIEUJUSTE, v. J. DODD PLUMBING, INC., 3 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See §§ 440.09(4), 440.105(4)(b)l-3, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . See §§ 440.09(4), 440.105(4)(b)l-3, Fla. Stat. . . .

ALTSTATT, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,, 1 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . It is, however, clear that section 440.105(S)(c), Florida Statutes (2008), upon which claimant relied . . . Because nothing in section 440.105(3)(c) (or in the rest of chapter 440) required the judge of compensation . . . We find it unnecessary to decide whether the legislature intended section 440.105(3)(c) to apply to requests . . .

MURRAY, v. MARINER HEALTH ACE USA,, 994 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2008)

. . . ) no injury arose out of or in the course of employment; (2) the claim was fraudulent under section 440.105 . . . Section 440.105 provides in pertinent part that whoever knowingly makes a false statement or omits material . . . information to obtain workers' compensation benefits commits the felony of insurance fraud. § 440.105 . . .

PRUDEN, v. HERBERT CONTRACTORS, INC., 988 So. 2d 135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 440.105(3)(c) expressly requires the JCC to approve the attorney’s fees, providing, in pertinent . . .

MATRIX EMPLOYEE LEASING FCIC v. HERNANDEZ,, 975 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . The E/C argues that the JCC erred in its application of sections 440.105(4)(b)(9) and 440.09(4)(a), Florida . . . though he was unlawfully employed. depends on whether the JCC erred in its interpretation of sections 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person: . . . It is undisputed that claimant violated section 440.105(4) (b) (9), Florida Statutes (2005). . . . The record contains no evidence that claimant violated section 440.105(4)(b)(9), Florida Statutes, for . . .

AMS STAFF LEASING, INC. LLC v. ARREOLA,, 976 So. 2d 612 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . A Closer Look at § 440.105(4)(B)(9) Reveals Unauthorized Workers Should be Precluded From Workers’ Compensation . . .

O. HORNING- KEATING, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,, 969 So. 2d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . privacy claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (3) he was immune from liability under section 440.105 . . . Count III: Immunity under sections 440.105 and 440.1051 of the Florida Statutes Spangler was immune from . . . existence of the tape to the Division of Insurance Fraud, this conduct would be protected under section 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(1) of the Florida Statutes (1995) provides as follows: 440.105. . . . Section 440.105 of the Florida Statutes (1995) provides immunity for individuals who, in good faith, . . .

UNC AVIATION SERVICES v. HORNE,, 957 So. 2d 698 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . entire future PTD benefits were in danger of being forfeited under the provisions of sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . .

ALVAREZ, v. UNICCO, 958 So. 2d 951 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See §§ 440.09(4) and 440.105(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (2003). . . .

JOSE M. FRANCISCO, P. A. v. L. ESPINOSA,, 954 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See §§ 440.20(11)(c), 440.105(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006); Transp. Cas. Ins. Co. v. . . .

LALONDE, v. CHECKER S DRIVE- IN RESTAURANTS, INC., 943 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . find that the JCC erred in failing to rule on E/C’s defense of fraud raised under sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . . fraudulent, or misleading statements for the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits. § 440.105 . . .

MARSHALL, v. AMERISYS, INC., 943 So. 2d 276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . libel per se by writing e-mails falsely accusing him of a crime; (4) committed fraud under section 440.105 . . .

STATE v. ARNAL,, 941 So. 2d 556 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . In July 2004, the State filed a two count information charging Arnal with violating section 440.105(4 . . . of avoiding, delaying, or diminishing the amount of payment of any workers’ compensation premiums. § 440.105 . . .

PAVILION APARTMENTS v. WETHERINGTON,, 943 So. 2d 226 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . claim [for medical and indemnity benefits] is denied in its entirety, pursuant to Florida Statutes 440.105 . . . Section 440.105 places requirements on claimants not unlike the duty of candor an attorney owes a tribunal . . . Section 440.105 provides in relevant part: (4) Whoever violates any provision of this subsection commits . . . false, incomplete, or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to such claim. § 440.105 . . . benefits based on a payor’s unilateral determination that a claimant has violated sections 440.09 and 440.105 . . .

CHAPMAN, v. NATIONSBANK, 937 So. 2d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . misleading statements in an attempt to obtain benefits for her psychiatric condition in violation of section 440.105 . . .

WEAVER, v. MBM, 936 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . In this workers’ compensation appeal, Charles Weaver argues that sections 440.09(4) and 440.105, which . . . these statutes deprive claimant of the procedures available to carriers accused of fraud under section 440.105 . . . impose stricter penalties on claimants accused of fraud than on carriers accused of fraud under section 440.105 . . .

PAULSON, v. DIXIE COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, 936 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . finding Claimant made false, fraudulent, incomplete or misleading statements as defined in section 440.105 . . . evidence supports the JCC’s conclusion that Claimant committed one of the prohibited acts of section 440.105 . . . This court has interpreted section 440.105(4)(b) to include false, fraudulent, incomplete or misleading . . . workers’ compensation benefits in a different workers’ compensation case than the case in which the 440.105 . . . ), at issue here, excludes coverage if the employee engaged in any of the acts described in section 440.105 . . .

QUIROZ, v. HEALTH CENTRAL HOSPITAL, 929 So. 2d 563 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . claims (JCC) denying all workers’ compensation benefits to claimant based on fraud pursuant to section 440.105 . . . receiving these workers’ compensation benefits based upon his finding of fraud pursuant to section 440.105 . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . through his testimony at the hearing, knowingly or intentionally engaged in any acts described in section 440.105 . . . ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur. .Section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), provides . . .

VALDES v. GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Capital moved to dismiss, claiming immunity under sections 440.105, 440.1051 and 626.989 of the Florida . . .

POLSTON, v. HURRICANE ISLAND OUTWARD BOUND, 920 So. 2d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . challenges an order entered by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) finding that she violated section 440.105 . . . misleading statements for the purpose of securing workers’ compensation benefits in violation of section 440.105 . . . Stat. 440.105(4)(b).” . . . After a final hearing, the JCC issued an order finding Polston had violated section 440.105(4)(b)(2), . . . The JCC went on, however, to rule on the E/C’s affirmative defense of misrepresentation under section 440.105 . . .

VALDES, v. GALCO CONSTRUCTION GAB,, 922 So. 2d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . the Eleventh Judicial Circuit filed an information charging him with a criminal violation of section 440.105 . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . Valdes alleged violations of section 440.105, Florida Statutes (1999); entitlement to the benefits at . . .

CITRUS PEST CONTROL AND CLAIMS CONTROL, INC. v. BROWN,, 913 So. 2d 754 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . determines that the employee knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in section 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), provides in part that it is unlawful for any person: . . . knew that they were false, incomplete, or misleading, the statements fall within the scope of section 440.105 . . . clear from an examination of the order whether the JCC found that the claimant had violated section 440.105 . . . that, on remand, the JCC should rule that the claimant’s statements fall within the scope of section 440.105 . . .

PINNACLE BENEFITS, INC. v. ALBY,, 913 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See §§ 440.09(4) & 440.105(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH v. McKALE,, 911 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . The E/C alleges that Claimant violated sections 440.09(4) and 440.105(4)(b)2., Florida Statutes, by providing . . . the purpose of obtaining workers’ compensation benefits, or in support of his claim for benefits. § 440.105 . . . misleading statement be material to the claim; it only must be made for the purpose of obtaining benefits. § 440.105 . . . question is whether Claimant knowingly or intentionally committed any of the acts prohibited by section 440.105 . . . his activities at the club suggest the possible commission of at least two acts prohibited by section 440.105 . . .

AGUILERA, v. INSERVICES, INC., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005)

. . . or the dissent, does Aguilera address the applicability of section 440.37 (or its successor, section 440.105 . . . authorized to revoke or suspend the authority of a workers’ compensation carrier for violation of Section 440.105 . . . In its place, the Legislature enacted section 440.105, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). . . . As noted in footnote 7, section 440.37 was replaced in 1993 by section 440.105. . . . However, section 440.105 is never discussed by the Third District below or the majority of this Court . . .

SMITH, v. CHEPOLIS,, 896 So. 2d 934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . language that an officer or shareholder can be treated as an “employer” only in an action under section 440.105 . . .

N. NELSON, v. LABOR FINDERS,, 897 So. 2d 501 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . appellant’s industrial injury was denied upon a finding, in accordance with sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 . . .

SIMPSON, v. AMERICAN CUSTOM INTERIORS,, 911 So. 2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . benefits in the future because he made a misrepresentation of fact, in violation of sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 . . . compensation benefits to any worker who knowingly or intentionally engages in any of the acts set forth in 440.105 . . .

LEE, v. VOLUSIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,, 890 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See §§ 440.09(4)(a), 440.105(4)(b)(l)-(2) & (5), Fla. . . . Finally, to the extent that Claimant contests the constitutionality of sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 . . . (b), this court has determined section 440.09(4), in relation to section 440.105, does not violate due . . .

W. BRUNER, v. GC- GW, INC. d b a, 880 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . because our Legislature certainly knows how to penalize refusal to hire, and has done so in section 440.105 . . . job applicant because the employee or applicant has filed a claim for benefits under this chapter.” § 440.105 . . . intent of chapter 440 supports its interpretation of section 440.205, appellee contends that section 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(2)(a)2., which the Legislature enacted in 1993, declares it unlawful for an employer . . . According to appellee, the Legislature’s choice of language in ' section 440.105(2)(a)2.. indicates that . . . concludes then that, because the Legislature did not amend section 440.205 at the time it enacted section 440.105 . . . See § 440.105(2)(a)2„ Fla. Stat. (Supp.1994). . . .

CHAPMAN, v. NATIONSBANK, 872 So. 2d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . , fraudulent or misleading statement for the purpose of obtaining benefits, in violation of section 440.105 . . . not clear from our examination of the order whether the JCC found that claimant had violated section 440.105 . . . court’s decision in CDL, “the JCC should rule that the statements fall within the scope of section 440.105 . . . compensation claims ... determines that the employee has knowingly engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4)(b) 1. states it is unlawful for anyone "[t]o knowingly make, or cause to be made, . . .

ISAAC, v. GREEN IGUANA, INC. d b a, 871 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . of Compensation Claims (JCC) which finds that she is guilty of fraud within the meaning of section 440.105 . . . Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the JCC to delete the finding of a violation of section 440.105 . . . previous grounds for denial of Claimant’s claim, the Court finds an independent ground exists as per § 440.105 . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4) (b) contains numerous examples of false, fraudulent or misleading activity which are . . .

SINGLETARY, v. YODER S AND AMERITRUST INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 871 So. 2d 289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . misleading oral and written statements for the purpose of obtaining benefits [in violation of section 440.105 . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (2002) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . both parties at oral argument, the employer/carrier had the burden of proving a violation of section 440.105 . . . that witness would be guilty of making a fraudulent statement, and subject to sanctions, under section 440.105 . . .

CDL v. COREA,, 867 So. 2d 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See also § 440.105(4)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1999). . . . however, Corea’s conduct did not “rise to the level of fraud as contemplated by Florida Statutes, § 440.105 . . . (4)(b)” and, thus, his actions were not sanctionable under sections 440.105(4)(b) and 440.09(4). . . . his claim for benefits, then the JCC should rule that the statements fall within the scope of section 440.105 . . .

O LEARY, v. USA WASTE MANAGEMENT, 863 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . , or misleading statements and omitted or concealed material information, thereby violating section 440.105 . . .

VILLAGE APARTMENTS v. HERNANDEZ,, 856 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . knowingly provides any false, misleading, fraudulent or incomplete information as set forth in section 440.105 . . . Section 440.09(4), provides that the commission of any act prohibited by section 440.105, results in . . . For instance, section 440.105(4)(b)2., Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), which doesn’t use the word “fraud . . . knew they were false, incomplete or misleading, then the statements fall within the scope of section 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4)(b)2., provides: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person: * * * * 2. . . .

INSERVICES, INC. f k a USA a v. AGUILERA,, 837 So. 2d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . benefits, such statements constitute a criminal offense and subject the carrier to penalties under section 440.105 . . . authorized to revoke or suspend the authority of a workers’ compensation carrier for violation of Section 440.105 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE, 829 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2002)

. . . A petition shall contain the fraud notice contained in section 440.105(7), Florida Statutes, and shall . . .

MEDINA, v. GULF COAST LINEN SERVICES, 825 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The JCC determined that appellant committed workers’ compensation fraud under subparagraphs 440.105(4 . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in § 440.105 . . . Section 440.105 in turn contains provisions prohibiting any person from committing fraud, by, e.g., making . . . and having determined that appellant committed workers’ compensation fraud in violation of section 440.105 . . .

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRATHER,, 810 So. 2d 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The order denying the employer/cam-er’s motion to dismiss under section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes . . .

RUSSELL CORPORATION v. JACOBS,, 782 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . determine whether a claimant “knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in section 440.105 . . .

WRIGHT, v. UNIFORMS FOR INDUSTRY, a k a FCCI, 772 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Following his conviction on two counts of workers’ compensation fraud in violation of section 440.105 . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE, 795 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2000)

. . . PETITIONER’S ATTESTATION — (SECTION 440.105(7), FLORIDA STATUTES). I, . . . . .

TEMPORARY LABOR SOURCE, v. E. H., 765 So. 2d 757 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . , but instead denied the claim in its entirety on the ground that the claimant had violated section 440.105 . . . reversed the order, finding that a JCC is not authorized under section 440.09(4) to make a section 440.105 . . . modify our prior decision in this case regarding the JCC’s lack of authorization to make a section 440.105 . . .

RUSTIC LODGE v. A. ESCOBAR,, 729 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), provides, among other things, that it is unlawful . . .

A. REIM, III, v. L. MULLIGAN, Jr. a k a L. s W. A., 722 So. 2d 241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Florida Statutes (1995), makes such a corporate officer an “employer” for the purposes of sections 440.105 . . . Section 440.105 contains a list of prohibited activities and associated penalties. . . . Mulligan has violated section 440.105(4)(a)(3), which states that it shall be unlawful for any employer . . . Section 440.106 provides civil remedies for violations of section 440.105. . . .

LABOO, v. STATE, 715 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . first impression in Florida: whether conviction for both workers’ compensation fraud under section 440.105 . . . The plain reading of section 440.105(5) evidences the legislature’s intent to allow a conviction for . . . Section 440.105(4) proscribes, among other things, any knowingly fraudulent statement made for the purpose . . .

AMOS, v. STATE, 711 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 440.37 has now been modified and recodified into section 440.105, Florida Statutes (1997), which . . . provides: 440.105 Prohibited activities; penalties.— (4) Whoever violates any provision of this subsection . . .

FLORIDA COCA- COLA BOTTLING COMPANY v. SULLIVAN,, 710 So. 2d 23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . We also affirm the JCC’s findings regarding the applicability of subsections 440.09(4) and 440.105, Florida . . .

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD F. A. v. U. PAULK,, 705 So. 2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . that under section 440.34(6), Florida Statutes (1989), which has since been transferred to section 440.105 . . .

BARNES FOUNDATION, v. TOWNSHIP OF LOWER MERION, P. E. L. R. J. C. D. M. L. W. III, S. A. H., 982 F. Supp. 970 (E.D. Pa. 1997)

. . . Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440.105 S.Ct. at 3254. . . .

OCA, v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, a a, 692 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . false statements about the availability of work, he has stated a cause of action under subparagraph, 440.105 . . . In its place, the legislature enacted the similarly-worded section 440.105, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994 . . . We therefore conclude that there is no private right of action under section 440.105. . . .

MELLON SECURITY SOUND PCA v. CUSTER,, 687 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . As to the E/C’s assertion that sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 preclude the claimant from entitlement . . .

HORIZONS PAINTING PCA v. LESSARD,, 688 So. 2d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . 440.09(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), based on false statements claimant made contrary to section 440.105 . . . determines that the employee has knowingly or intentionally engaged in any of the acts described in s. 440.105 . . . Section 440.105(4) provides, in pertinent part: (b) It shall be unlawful for any person: 1. . . . The correctness of this interpretation is supported by section 440.105(l)(a), which outlines the procedures . . .

E. H. v. TEMPORARY LABOR SOURCE, INC., 687 So. 2d 884 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . order by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying coverage pursuant to sections 440.09(4) and 440.105 . . . that E.H. made these false statements for the purpose of obtaining benefits, thus violating section 440.105 . . . hearing of-fleer, court, or jury convened in this state” determines that a claimant has violated section 440.105 . . . A JCC is not authorized to make a section 440.105 determination under the plain wording of this statute . . . on remand to determine whether E.H. is entitled to compensation, without reference to either section 440.105 . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROCEDURE, 674 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1996)

. . . A petition shall contain the fraud notice contained in section 440.105(7), Florida Statutes, and shall . . . PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY (SECTION 440.192(4), FLORIDA STATUTES) AND PETITIONER’S ATTESTATION (SECTION 440.105 . . . PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY (SECTION 440.192(4), FLORIDA STATUTES) AND PETITIONER’S ATTESTATION (SECTION 440.105 . . .