Source: https://www.floridainjuryattorneyblawg.com/jeffrey-p-gale-p-a-ada-vis-a-vis-workers-compensation-martin-v-carpenter-defense/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:28:47+00:00

Document:
In 1961, the Florida Supreme Court denied benefits to a workers’ compensation claimant who claimed to hurt her back on the job, for misrepresenting a past medical condition in a job application. See, Martin v. Carpenter, 132 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1961).
The employer/carrier advanced two defenses to the claim for benefits, the second contention being that claimant, because of falsification of the pre-employment questionnaire as to her physical condition, is not entitled to compensation.
a false representation as to physical condition or health made by an employee in procuring employment will preclude the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for an otherwise compensable injury if there is shown to be a causal relationship between the injury and the false representation and if it is also shown that (1) the employee knew the representation to be false, (2) the employer relied upon the false representation and (3) such reliance resulted in consequent injury to the employer.
This rule has ruled this issue in Florida for more than fifty years. Its grip may be loosening.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990. It may preempt Martin v. Carpenter. The Act prohibits employers falling within its purview — 14 or more employees — from inquiring about disabilities and prior workers’ compensation cases and requiring a medical examination before a job offer is made. This may well mean that a workers’ compensation employer/carrier relying on pre-job offer statements to assert the Martin v. Carpenter defense has violated the ADA. Going further, as the ADA seeks to remove artificial and unnecessary barriers to employment, where such barriers are based upon unreasonable discrimination, it can be argued that the ADA renders Martin v. Carpenter unconstitutional.
The continued viability of Martin v. Carpenter has not yet been tested. If and when it is, it may fail. Not only does the ADA allow employers to ask questions in the pre-offer stage about an applicant’s ability to perform specific job functions, which is a way of tiptoeing around direct talk about disabilities and infirmities, medical examinations and health questions can be asked once a job has been offered. These are two areas where dishonest responses may run afoul of Martin v. Carpenter without implicating the ADA.
The fact that an employee has suffered previous disability, impairment, anomaly, or disease, or received compensation therefor, shall not preclude her or him from benefits, as specified in paragraph (b), for a subsequent aggravation or acceleration of the preexisting condition or preclude benefits for death resulting therefrom, except that no benefits shall be payable if the employee, at the time of entering into the employment of the employer by whom the benefits would otherwise be payable, falsely represents herself or himself in writing as not having previously been disabled or compensated because of such previous disability, impairment, anomaly, or disease and the employer detrimentally relies on the misrepresentation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.