final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower
Tribunal No. 14-32621, Miguel M. de la O, Judge.
Law Offices of Mario G. Menocal, P.A. and Mario G. Menocal,
Waas, Hernandez & Solomon, P.A. and Richard A. Warren,
and Khristen S. Vachal-Reese, for appellee.
FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.
appeals from an order dismissing her personal injury action
for fraud upon the court, contending the imposition of the
"ultimate sanction" was wholly unwarranted under
the facts presented in the lower tribunal. Alvarado v.
Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So.3d 388,
388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Employing "an abuse of
discretion standard, . . . with the understanding that this
standard is somewhat narrowed," as an order of dismissal
for fraud on the court must be based upon clear and
convincing evidence, for the reasons set forth below, we
affirm. Diaz v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 196
So.3d 504, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Suarez v. Benihana Nat'l of Fla.
Corp., 88 So.3d 349, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)).
several years of contentious litigation, appellee alleged
that appellant "sentiently set in motion some
unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the
judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate [her
claim] by improperly influencing the trier of fact or
unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing
party's claim or defense." Sky Dev., Inc. v.
Vistaview Dev., Inc., 41 So.3d 918, 920 (Fla. 3d DCA
2010) (citation omitted). The lower tribunal conducted a
comprehensive evidentiary hearing and, after considering
transcripts, surveillance recordings, and "live
testimony," agreed and dismissed the case.
conclusion of the trial court rested upon findings that
appellant grossly misrepresented the nature and extent of her
injuries, as evidenced by indisputable recorded surveillance,
repudiated her prior sworn testimony explicating the alleged
location and material circumstances of the disputed accident,
and fabricated evidence to support her theory of
prosecution. These "falsehoods" bear directly
on the central issues in controversy, namely liability and
damages. Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1998) ("The integrity of the civil litigation
process depends on truthful disclosure of facts. A system
that depends on an adversary's ability to uncover
falsehoods is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of
conduct must be discouraged in the strongest possible
way."); see Austin v. Liquid Distribs., Inc.,
928 So.2d 521, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reaffirming that
"[w]here a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and
omissions about [the] accident and medical history . . . in
depositions, those misrepresentations and omissions go to the
heart of [the] claim and subvert the integrity of [the]
record amply reflects an intent to deceive the lower
tribunal, we discern no abuse of discretion and
affirm. See Willie-Koonce v. Miami Sunshine
Transfer & Tours Corp., 233 So.3d 1271, 1274 (Fla.
3d DCA 2017) (affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit where
surveillance video and the plaintiff's testimony provided
"clear and convincing evidence of an intention to
deceive the court"); Cox, 706 So.2d at 47
(finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing the
plaintiff's complaint where it was "clearly . . .
shown [the plaintiff gave] many false or misleading answers
in sworn discovery that either appear[ed] calculated to evade
or stymy discovery on issues central to [the] case").
 "Because dismissal is the most
severe of all possible sanctions . . . it should be employed
only in extreme circumstances." Ruiz v. City of
Orlando, 859 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (quoting
Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)).
To that end, "the questionable conduct" should
"involve matters [considered] central to the issues in
[the] lawsuit." Bertrand v. Belhomme, 892 So.2d
1150, 1153-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see Hair v.
Morton, 36 So.3d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Moreover,
"[t]he evidence of fraud ...