corollary application of the no-fault threshold to be dependent upon a claimant’s right to vote or his domicile or citizenship in Florida. Although this statutorily mandated insurance is not a government program, a more provincial definition would raise other questions of a constitutional dimension. See Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 374, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971) (finding welfare laws conditioning benefits on citizenship and imposing durational residency requirement on aliens violative of equal protection clause); see also Del Taco v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 79 Cal.App.4th 1437, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 825 (2000) (finding workers’ immigration status did not affect entitlement to temporary disability payments); Gene’s Harvesting v. Rodriguez, 421 So.2d 701(Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>). Essentially, Florida is attempting to limit
holding that the board properly placed the burden of proving entitlement to benefits on the applicant holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits holding claimants status as illegal alien did not preclude entitlement to benefits for workrelated injury