Craig-Webb v. Coast to Coast Manpower, LLC / TriStar Risk Management

Derrick E. Cox

JCC Sculco (Orlando)(4-10-19) – Denied and dismissed all PFBs with prejudice. Claimant, a truck driver, had a work-related back injury in 2017. In 2015, Claimant had a work-related back injury with a different employer. Claimant had the same counsel in both claims. In the 2015 claim, he had disc bulges from L2-3 through L5-S1 and a central disc protrusion at L5-S1. Eventually Dr. Chaumont performed an injection in late 2016 that relieved his pain, and he settled the 2015 claim for $79,000. In the 2017 injury, Claimant testified that following the 2016 settlement, he had a discussion regarding employment with the employer rep, Ms. West. She asked him if he was medically cleared by a doctor after his 2015 injury and suggested that he not write that accident down in his upcoming DOT physical. Subsequently, Claimant underwent the physical and checked “No” in the box under the question regarding prior back or neck problems. Ms. West, testified that while she had no independent recollection of speaking with Claimant, she did not, and would never, tell an applicant “not to worry about” or not to put down information about a prior injury on his DOT physical. Further, the Sr. V. P. of Risk Management for the employer testified that every DOT medical form submitted with an employment application is reviewed by his staff and he would not have hired Claimant for the driving position if he had been provided information about Claimant’s prior work restrictions – instead, he would have placed him in another position. The JCC found that neither the Claimant’s DOT physical form, nor his employment application asked any questions about previous “disability,” or about any compensation for “disability.” Instead, they reasoned, that a back “problem” is plainly a different concept than a “disability.” Further, even if the E/C had failed to establish all the elements of a misrepresentation defense, the JCC found that the Claimant was barred from benefits based on the finding that he knowingly and intentionally gave false and misleading testimony at the final hearing. This inconsistent and illogical explanations for why he indicated he never had prior neck or back problems on the DOT physical were knowingly false, and made for the purpose of securing benefits – as such, it was unnecessary to address the other claims, defenses, and issues raised.
View JCC Merits Order