Case Name: VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH and Employers Mutual, Inc., Appellants, v. John McKALE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-10-06
Citations: 911 So. 2d 1282
Docket Number: No. 1D05-1975
Parties: VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH and Employers Mutual, Inc., Appellants, v. John McKALE, Appellee.
Judges: WOLF, J., concurs; and HAWKES, J., concurs with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 911
Pages: 1282–1285

Head Matter:
VILLAGE OF NORTH PALM BEACH and Employers Mutual, Inc., Appellants, v. John McKALE, Appellee.
No. 1D05-1975.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 6, 2005.
H. George Kagan of Miller, Kagan, Rodriguez and Silver, P.A., West Palm Beach, Attorney for Appellants.
Michael H. Stauder, North Palm Beach, Attorney for Appellee.

Opinion:
THOMAS, J.
The Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals a non-final order determining compensability of a workers' compensation claim. Because we find that the trial court used the incorrect evidentiary standard, we reverse.
The E/C alleges that Claimant violated sections 440.09(4) and 440.105(4)(b)2., Florida Statutes, by providing false, incomplete or misleading statements regarding his employment status while he was receiving temporary total disability benefits from an industrial injury. In its order, the JCC found that the E/C failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claimant had committed fraud. However, the E/C is only required to prove that Claimant committed one of the prohibited acts by a preponderance of the evidence. Singletary v. Yoder's Ameritrust Ins. Corp., 871 So.2d 289, 291(Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Failure to use the proper legal standard is grounds for reversal. Cromartie v. City of St. Petersburg, 840 So.2d 372, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
We note that the JCC does not need to determine whether Claimant was employed or received payment for work while he was receiving benefits. The JCC is only required to determine whether Claimant knowingly or intentionally made any false, fraudulent, incomplete, or misleading statement, whether oral or written, for the purpose of obtaining workers' compensation benefits, or in support of his claim for benefits. § 440.105(4)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (1999). See Village Apartments v. Hernandez, 856 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Significantly, it is not necessary that a false, fraudulent, or misleading statement be material to the claim; it only must be made for the purpose of obtaining benefits. § 440.105(4)(b)1., Fla. Stat. (1999).
Accordingly, we REVERSE the JCC's order and REMAND with directions for the JCC to consider whether the E/C proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Claimant knowingly or intentionally made any false, incomplete or misleading statements in an attempt to obtain workers' compensation benefits.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, J., concurs; and HAWKES, J., concurs with written opinion.