FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D18-4406 _____________________________ EDNA HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. FOOD MARKET CORP. dba JOSEPH’S CLASSIC MARKET and AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA OF FL and ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, Appellees. _____________________________ On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Thomas A. Hedler, Judge. Date of Accident: July 17, 2017. October 30, 2019 WINOKUR, J. Claimant Edna Hernandez appeals the order by the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying her entitlement to any workers’ compensation benefits due to her fraudulent provision of an invalid social security number (SSN). We affirm. Claimant, an illegal alien without a valid SSN, was injured at work and her employer/carrier later directed her to a medical care provider. Claimant was advised that she would be required to present a SSN, and the registration form indeed included a place to enter a SSN and a statement that the “claim could be denied if you do not provide the information.” Claimant admitted that she entered an invalid SSN on the form because she believed she needed to do so to obtain authorized medical care. Section 440.09(4)(a), Florida Statutes, prohibits an employee from receiving workers’ compensation benefits if he or she commits any act described in section 440.105, Florida Statutes, “for the purpose of securing workers’ compensation benefits.” Section 440.105(4)(b) prohibits employees from making fraudulent, false, or misleading statements. See, e.g., § 440.105(4)(b)9., Fla. Stat. (“It shall be unlawful for any person . . . [t]o knowingly present or cause to be presented any false, fraudulent, or misleading oral or written statement to any person as evidence of identity for the purpose of obtaining employment or filing or supporting a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.”). The employer/carrier argued that Claimant violated section 440.105(4)(b)9. by fraudulently providing an invalid SSN to obtain workers’ compensation benefits, and thus was not entitled to benefits. “In deciding this issue, the JCC had to answer two questions. The first is whether Claimant made or caused to be made false, fraudulent or misleading statements. The second is whether the statement was intended by Claimant to be for the purpose of obtaining benefits.” Arreola v. Admin. Concepts, 17 So. 3d 792, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The JCC answered both questions affirmatively and denied Claimant’s claim. On appeal, Claimant argues that section 440.105(4) is unconstitutional as applied to her because it is preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), citing Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012), and State v. Garcia, 401 P.3d 588 (Kan. 2017), cert. granted in part, 139 S. Ct. 1317 (2019). These authorities do not support relief. Part of a 2010 Arizona law made it a state crime for illegal aliens “to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in 2 [Arizona].” Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13–2928(C). Discussing the IRCA’s “comprehensive framework for ‘combating the employment of illegal aliens,’” the Supreme Court noted that employers are penalized criminally and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals