claim on the March 2012 accident, like the video recording in Jacob, diminishes the credibility of his deposition testimony about the severity of the March 2012 accident. Without additional facts, however, the trial court record does not establish that Mr. Duarte sentiently set in motion an unconscionable scheme to defraud in this case against Snap-on and Mr. Mullins such that it would warrant a dismissal. And without additional evidence demonstrating a knowing fraud on the court in this case, the inconsistencies between his May 2012 examination under oath and his May 2014 deposition are regarded by our decisions as matters of fact and credibility for a jury to resolve, See Jacob, 840 So.2d at 1170; see also Kubel v. San Marco Floor & Wall, Inc., 967 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Our decision in Howard, in turn, bears
holding that evidence that the plaintiffs husband asked the physician to revise a report to eliminate certain facts bearing on the plaintiffs injuries did not justify dismissal because those matters were suited for impeachment at trial holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered holding that the plaintiffs claims arose from a certain contract because the subject matter of the plaintiffs suit was intertwined with requirements referred to in the contract holding that rico claims were personal and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to sue on their own because their injuries were distinct from the injuries to creditors in general resulting from the diversion of corporate assets holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims