Dismissal of Claims in Civil Actions for Perjury
A trial court can dismiss a plaintiff’s claims in a civil case when it finds that the plaintiff committed perjury or made untruthful sworn statements in the case. See e.g., Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (“[W]here a party lies about matters pertinent to his own claim, or a portion of it, and perpetrates a fraud that permeates the entire proceeding, dismissal of the whole case is proper.”).
“The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on truthful disclosure of facts.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). “The suggestion that perjury in civil cases is acceptable, or, in the alternative, that it will go unpunished even when discovered, has gained regrettable acceptance among many.” Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (Sorondo, J., concurring).
I can think of few crimes, however, that strike more viciously against the integrity of our system of justice than the crime of perjury. In my judgment, it is imperative that when such misconduct is identified, offenders be immediately investigated and, if the evidence warrants, prosecuted to the full extent permitted by law.
Id.
In Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), the defendant in a personal injury action appealed a final judgment contending that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the case based on the plaintiff’s untruthful sworn statements. There the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries allegedly suffered when her car was rear-ended by the defendant. Id. The injuries included neck, jaw, back, leg, and arm pain. Id. However, the plaintiff did not plead or seek damages for aggravation of a pre-existing injury. Id.
The plaintiff also did not disclose an extensive history of medical treatment for similar injuries suffered in multiple prior incidents in her interrogatories responses and her deposition testimony. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d at 794. The defendant’s investigation revealed the undisclosed information. Id. 794–95. At trial, the plaintiff testified that she had injured her back in a prior incident but that “those injuries as well as injuries suffered as a result of previous car accidents had been ‘resolved.’” Id. at 795.
On cross-examination, the plaintiff confirmed the information that defendant’s investigation had disclosed. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d at 795. She admitted that the records revealed complaints of and treatment for injuries similar to those allegedly suffered in the collision with the defendant. Id. The plaintiff explained that she did not remember the omitted information. Id.
She also said she did not believe that the defendant’s questions concerned those injuries or incidents. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d at 795. The defendant sought dismissal based on plaintiff’s untruthfulness in discovery but the trial court reserved ruling on the motion. Id. Following a jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff, denying the defendant’s motion. Id.
In Martinsen, the Court stated, “‘[i]t is well-settled law ‘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.’’’ Martinsen, 736 So. 2d at 795 (quotation omitted). The Court reasoned, “[t]he record reveals that plaintiff’s misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition went to the heart of her claim and subverted the integrity of the action.” Id.
“The extensive nature of plaintiff’s history belie her contention that she had forgotten about the incidents, injuries and treatment.” Martinsen, 736 So. 2d at 795. “In addition, her confusion concerning the information requested, i.e., whether the discovery inquiries referred to resolved injuries, is disingenuous in light of the clear and unambiguous questions concerning prior injuries and plaintiff’s failure to seek clarification.” Id.
“Although 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, who had treated her for several months and to whom she had revealed a previous car accident and a work-related injury.” Martinsen, 736 So. 2d at 794–95. “Furthermore, she also failed to disclose that she had suffered from jaw pain, and had been treated for back, neck and hip problems for several years after the undisclosed incidents.” Id. at 795–96.
The Martinsen Court concluded, “[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.’” Martinsen, 736 So. 2d at 795 (quotation omitted). “Because the record clearly establishes that plaintiff engaged in serious misconduct, we hold that she has forfeited her right to proceed.” Id. “Thus, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss plaintiff’s cause.” Id. at 796.