Case Name: Charles WEAVER, Appellant, v. MBM and Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-08-22
Citations: 936 So. 2d 732
Docket Number: No. 1D05-674
Parties: Charles WEAVER, Appellant, v. MBM and Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellees.
Judges: KAHN, C.J., BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 936
Pages: 732–733

Head Matter:
Charles WEAVER, Appellant, v. MBM and Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellees.
No. 1D05-674.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 22, 2006.
Bradley Guy Smith of Smith, Feddeler, Smith & Miles, P.A., Lakeland; Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tampa; and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Lamar D. Oxford and Michael A. Lowe of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, Orlando, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation appeal, Charles Weaver argues that sections 440.09(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.