JEFFERSON STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
IRVING ROSENFELD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An employer appealed a worker's compensation order awarding a claimant permanent partial disability benefits based on a chiropractor's assessment of fifteen percent impairment, rather than lower assessments from other medical professionals. The court affirmed, holding that the deputy's credibility determination was supported by adequate findings even though the order did not explain in detail why the chiropractor's opinion was accepted over contradictory medical testimony.
The deputy's order contained sufficient findings of ultimate material facts to justify the award, and no greater explanation was required. The deputy properly exercised his function to determine credibility and resolve evidentiary conflicts, and he may accept one physician's testimony over that of several others.
[1] A deputy commissioner in a workers' compensation case has the discretion to determine credibility and resolve conflicts in the evidence.
[2] A deputy commissioner may accept the testimony of one physician over that of several others in a workers' compensation case.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is the deputy's function to determine credibility and resolve conflicts in the evidence, Grillo v. Big "B" Ranch, 828 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1976), and he may accept the testimony of one physician over that of several others, Crowell v. Messana, 180 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1965).”
Establishes the deputy's legal authority to weigh conflicting medical testimony and choose one expert's opinion over others.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant sustained a work-related injury. At the worker's compensation hearing, three medical professionals testified: the claimant's treating phy…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflicts In Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The employer appeals a worker’s compensation order, which we affirm, and by which the claimant was found to be permanently partially disabled and awarded appropriate benefits. At the hearing on the claim, several doctors testified: claimant’s treating physician opined a five to ten percent permanent partial impairment; an examining physician opined a seven and one-half percent permanent partial impairment; and an examining chiropractor opined a ten to fifteen percent permanent partial impairment. The order appealed recites these opinions and finds that the claimant sustained a fifteen percent permanent partial impairment, noting that the chiropractor’s testimony was “thorough and convincing opinion . . and evaluation . . . .” Appellant asserts that the order does not adequately explain the reasons for accepting the chiropractor’s testimony rather than that of the other doctors.
It is the deputy’s function to determine credibility and resolve conflicts in the evidence, Grillo v. Big “B” Ranch, 828 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1976), and he may accept the testimony of one physician over that of several others, Crowell v. Messana, 180 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1965). The deputy “need make only such findings of ultimate material facts upon which he relies, as are sufficient justification to show the basis of an award . . . .” Pierce v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 279 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1973); see also, Vargas v. Americana of Bal Harbour, 345 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1976). He need not explain precisely why he accepts the testimony of one witness and rejects that of another as long as it does not appear that he ignored or overlooked contrary testimony. Buro v. Dino’s Southland Meats, 354 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1978).
In the present case, it is clear that the deputy did not overlook the contrary medical opinions. Although he accepted the opinion of an examining physician who had' seen the claimant only once, rather than that of the treating physician, Buro clarifies Pierce and Vargas and indicates that the circumstances of this given case do not require any greater explanation than that which was given.
The order appealed is AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Emory Curry v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd., 522 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ation of claims for workers’ compensation, it is the deputy’s function to determine credibility and resolve conflicts in the evidence, and he may accept the testimony of one physician over that of several others. Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 386 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and S and S Stove Repair, Inc. v. Dumas, 465 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Moreover, a deputy generally need not explain when he accepts the testimony of one doctor and rejects the testimony of another. Buro v. Dino’s Southland…
-
McCALL v. Dick Burns, Inc., 408 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…de no finding on medical causal connection. Questions as to the credibility of witnesses and conflicts in the evidence are usually for the deputy commissioner to resolve, especially in cases of expert testimony. Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 386 So. 2d 865 at 865-866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); see also Glades County Sugar Growers v. Gonzales, 388 So. 2d 333, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As explained in Rouse v. Wyldwood Tropical Nursery, 392 So. 2d 370, 372-373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), it would be helpful if the de…
-
H & A Frank's Constr., Inc. v. Mendoza, 582 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…retion to determine credibility, resolve conflicts in evidence, and accept the testimony of one physician over that of several others. Id.; S and S Stove Repair, Inc. v. Dumas, 465 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 386 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). His discretion, however, is not unbridled. Although a JCC generally does not need to explain when he accepts the testimony of one doctor and rejects the testimony of another, he must state his reasons when: (1) the reason for th…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pierce v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 279 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1973)
- Crowell v. Messana Contractors & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 180 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1965)
- Vargas v. Americana OF BAL Harbour, 345 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1976)
- Buro v. Ding's Southland Meats, 354 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1978)
- C.C.B. v. State, 828 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)