Legal Cases/Articles - What Happens When A Party Lies To The Court?
What Happens When A Party Lies To The Court?
By Jaime E. Suarez
What happens when a party lies to the court? The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. Fraud on the court occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense.” 1 Furthermore, “[t]he evidence to support a finding of fraud must be clear and convincing [...] the evidence must prove that the misconduct set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability [to impartially] adjudicate a matter.2
If the trial court finds that a party has perpetuated a fraud on the court, the trial court has the authority to dismiss an action.3
Misrepresentations Regarding Accidents, Injuries, or Medical History
In Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a favorable jury verdict for the plaintiff after finding that the plaintiff had engaged in serious misconduct in discovery. 4 Specifically, the Plaintiff who was a nurse, sought recovery for injuries allegedly suffered when her car was rear-ended by a County bus that was traveling at approximately 4-5 miles per hour.5 The plaintiff’s injuries included neck, jaw, back, leg and arm pain; however, she did not plead or seek damages for aggravation of a pre-existing injury. 6
In response to interrogatories and deposition questions, the plaintiff did not disclose an extensive history of medical treatment for similar injuries suffered in prior car accidents and in a work-related accident. However, the County investigated the plaintiff's medical history and learned of the undisclosed information. 7
During the trial, the plaintiff testified that she had injured her back in a work-related incident. The plaintiff testified, however, that those injuries as well as injuries suffered as a result of previous car accidents had been "resolved." 8 She also admitted that she had jaw problems but that she did not have to wear an appliance before this accident.9
After the County disclosed the information it had found regarding her previous injuries, the plaintiff admitted to them during cross-examination. She also admitted that her medical records revealed complaints of, and treatment for, injuries similar to those allegedly suffered in this accident. However, the plaintiff also testified that she did not remember the omitted information or did not believe that the County's questions concerned those injuries or incidents.
The County asked the court to dismiss the case based on the plaintiff's untruthfulness in discovery. However, following a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor, the trial court denied the County's dismissal motion and entered judgment for the plaintiff.
On appeal, the District Court ruled that “the extensive nature of plaintiff's history belie her contention that she had forgotten about the incidents, injuries and treatment.” 10 The court also found that the plaintiff’s confusion regarding the information requested, (whether the discovery inquiries referred to resolved injuries), was “disingenuous in light of the clear and unambiguous questions concerning prior injuries and plaintiff's failure to seek clarification.” 11 The court further concluded that “[b]ased on this record, it is clear that the plaintiff gave ‘many false or misleading answers in sworn discovery that either appear calculated to evade or stymy discovery on issues central to her case.’” 12
Specific Examples of False or Misleading Answers
In Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, the Third District Court of Appeal found that although the plaintiff's responses included doctors she had visited before and after the accident, she did not disclose the doctor she visited three days after the accident.13 This doctor had treated the plaintiff for several months after the accident and was whom she had revealed a previous car accident and a work-related injury.14 However, the plaintiff had named another doctor as the person who treated her after the accident.
Furthermore, the plaintiff also failed to disclose that before the accident, she had suffered from jaw pain and had been treated for back, neck and hip problems for several years.15 The court also noted that although regular treatment for the back, neck, and hip problems had terminated merely two years before this accident, the plaintiff had remembered to disclose the back problem or injury on an employment application filled out several months before the accident.16
The District Court concluded that "[t]he integrity of the civil litigation process depends on truthful disclosure of facts." 17 Accordingly, the District Court reversed the judgment, and remanded the case with directions to dismiss with prejudice.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice in Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., where the plaintiff lied about obtaining a master's degree, which led his treating physician to miscalculate the severity of the brain damage that the plaintiff sustained in an accident.18 The District Court concluded that the lie permeated the entire proceeding because it “went to the heart of the claim on damages” and “undermined the integrity of his [plaintiff's] entire action.” 19
Moreover, in Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., the District Court affirmed the trial court’s findings that during discovery, the appellant made deliberate misrepresentations and gave false information regarding his prior involvement in personal injury litigation, prior similar injuries, past medical treatment, criminal history, employment status and income.20 The court concluded that the appellant made "numerous and repeated misstatements of fact designed to intentionally thwart defendants from conducting discovery" and that such conduct amounted to "a perpetration of fraud upon the court." 21
Finally, in Long v. Swofford, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court was warranted in dismissing the motorist's negligence action with prejudice for fraud, where during her deposition, the plaintiff /motorist concealed her pre-existing back injury by stating she had not received medical treatment for her back prior to the accident.22
Fraud upon the Trial Court as a Basis for Dismissal with Prejudice
Florida courts have repeatedly held that “‘a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve her ends.’”23 In Rosenthal v. Rodriguez, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court could exercise its inherent authority to strike the personal injury plaintiff's pleadings and dismiss her cause with prejudice based upon the repeated and pervasive perjurious statements made by plaintiff on matters central to her action throughout the course of discovery and trial.24
Accordingly, the sanction of dismissal with prejudice due to fraud upon the court has long been an available, and often favored, remedy for a party's misconduct in the litigation process. 25
1 See Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
2 See Bertrand v. Belhomme, 892 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quotation omitted).
3 See Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
4 Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
5 Id., 736 So2d at 794-795.
6 Id.
7 Id., 736 So.2d at 795.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id., (citing Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So.2d 892, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Mendez, 665 So.2d at 1150; O'Vahey, 644 So.2d at 550. See also Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944)).
13 Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d at 796.
14 Id. Page 4 of 5
http://www.305miabogado.com
Written by: Jaime E. Suarez
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id., (quoting Cox, 706 So.2d at 47)
18 See Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc., 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
19 Id.
20 See Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 740 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
21 Id.
22 See Long v. Swofford, 805 So.2d 882, 883-884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
23 See Rosenthal v. Rodriguez, 750 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
24 Id., (quoting Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)).
25 See Bertrand v. Belhomme, 892 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). See also O'Vahey v. Miller, 644 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed personal injury case based on plaintiff's repeated lies under oath); Cabrerizo v. Fortune Int'l Realty, 760 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (parties who are guilty of fraud or misconduct should not be permitted to employ the very institution they have subverted to achieve their end); Destafano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 846 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“[w]hen a party lies about matters bearing directly on the issue of damages, dismissal is an appropriate sanction”).; Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA. 2003) (“[a] trial court has a duty and an obligation to dismiss a cause of action based upon fraud”); Hogan v. Dollar Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court's dismissal of personal injury action was warranted because of plaintiff's fraud regarding medical history); Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 740 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA. 1999) (trial court's dismissal of action was justified because of plaintiff's fraud during discovery); Baker v. Myers Tractor Services, Inc., 765 So. 2d 149, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1561 (Fla. 1st DCA. 2000) (affirming an order dismissing the appellant's case because the appellant's denial of a previous knee injury was directly related to a central fact necessary to establish his claim); Babe Elias Builders, Inc. v. Pernick, 765 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA. 2000) (holding that where a party perpetrates fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is proper); Rosenthal v. Rodriguez, 750 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (ruling that the trial court could exercise its inherent authority to strike personal injury plaintiff's pleadings and dismiss her cause with prejudice based upon the repeated and pervasive perjurious statements made by plaintiff on matters central to her action throughout the course of discovery and trial); and Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (ruling that the trial court's failure to dismiss the plaintiff's action was not justified because the plaintiff had given untruthful testimony in a deposition).
Jaime E. Suarez © 2007. All rights reserved. |
