STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, APPELLANT,
v.
LARSENIA PORTER, 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.
The State appealed a State Retirement Commission decision awarding Larsenia Porter disability retirement benefits. The court reversed, holding that Dr. Martinez's hearsay medical report, standing alone without supplementing evidence, was insufficient to support a finding of total and permanent disability.
The court held that hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings is admissible only to supplement or explain other evidence, and cannot be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible in civil actions. Dr. Martinez's report, unsupported by other medical evidence or testimony, was insufficient to support the Commission's disability finding.
[1] Hearsay evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings to supplement or explain other evidence, but it is insufficient on its own to support a finding unless it wou…
[2] A commission's personal observations of a claimant's physical condition do not constitute competent, substantial evidence to support a finding of total and permanent disa…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Hearsay evidence is admissible in an administrative proceeding, but only when it is used to supplement or explain other evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for admissibility of hearsay in administrative proceedings under Florida statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Porter, age 30, has been disabled by polio since 1962 with shortened legs requiring crutches for mobility. She worked as a teacher's aide from 19…
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 Competent Medical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
The State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement (State) appeals a final order from the State Retirement Commission (the Commission) which reversed the State’s decision to deny Larse-nia Porter regular disability retirement benefits. We reverse the Commission’s order, finding that there was no competent medical evidence to support its decision.
Mrs. Porter, thirty years of age, has been disabled by polio since 1962. Her legs never grew to their natural length, and she uses crutches to walk.1 She was employed as a teacher’s aide with the Hillsborough County District School Board from 1979 until she took maternity leave in 1989. Following the birth of her baby in 1989, she resigned her school board position, stating that she was not able physically to hold the job and to care for her family. She then sought disability retirement benefits.
At the hearing before the Commission, Mrs. Porter presented a report from a Dr. Martinez, who examined Mrs. Porter on September 14, 1989. Dr. Martinez’ report reflects the following. Mrs. Porter had weakness in her legs and had to walk with the use of crutches. She complained of low back pain and was hypertensive. Her leg examination was abnormal. Dr. Martinez’ report found that Mrs. Porter was permanently and totally disabled and that she was unable to return to work in the future. The report of Dr. Martinez was the only medical evidence submitted to the Commission which supported Mrs. Porter’s position that she was totally and permanently disabled.
The Commission permitted the report of Dr. Martinez to be accepted as hearsay evidence. At the hearing, the State submitted the deposition of Dr. Martinez in which he stated that he was unaware that Mrs. Porter had been employed and that Mrs. Porter should be able to return to her former employment if her condition was the same as it was before the delivery of her baby.
Hearsay evidence is admissible in an administrative proceeding, but only when it is used to supplement or explain other evidence. Section 120.58(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).2 “Here, the report of Dr. Martinez did not supplement or explain any other medical evidence. Hence, the report was insufficient in itself to support a finding of disability. See Campbell v. Central Florida Zoological Soc’y, 432 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Although Mrs. Porter testified before the Commission, the Commission’s personal observations of her cannot constitute competent, substantial evidence to support a finding of total and permanent disability because this matter involves medical expertise. See Ronald Allen Trucking Co. v. Helton, 449 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). With no other evidence submitted to the Commission to support the report of Dr. Martinez, we are compelled to reverse the order of the Commission.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur. . Mrs. Porter is currently in a wheel chair because of back surgery for a condition diagnosed subsequent to the issues in this case.
. That statute provides, in part:
Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. OF Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993)…ence, an advantage enjoyed equally by all parties. Our courts have made clear that regardless of a relaxed standard of admitting evidence, conclusions must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See, e.g., State, Dep’t of Admin. v. Porter, 591 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Thus a relaxed standard of admitting evidence is irrelevant to the quid pro quo evaluation. The negligent party can unilaterally limit the…
-
Pridgeon v. State, 662 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…the individual, who testifies under oath at the hearing or deposition and is subject to cross examination by the Division of Retirement. See § 121.23(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993); Fla.Admin.Code R. 60R-1.00481(2); Division of Retirement v. Porter, 591 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In support of the final order, the Division argues that the only competent medical evidence before the Commission was Dr. Ismail’s deposition, and that he merely established a “possibility” of causation. The remaining “medical”…
Authorities Cited
- Ronald Allen Trucking Co. & Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Helton, 449 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Campbell v. Cent. Fla. Zoological Soc'y & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 432 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)