JOHN FREDERICK, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES AND ALEXSIS, INC., APPELLEES
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.
A workers' compensation claimant appealed an order denying his claims for additional medical and indemnity benefits, arguing the Judge of Compensation Claims lacked sufficient evidentiary support for its credibility findings and misweighted expert medical testimony. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, reaffirming that appellate review of workers' compensation cases is limited to whether competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's factual findings, not whether the appellate court would weigh evidence differently.
The court affirmed the JCC's order, holding that competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's factual findings and that the claimant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the JCC's credibility and evidentiary rulings. The court clarified that while an appellate court may be in as good a position as the JCC to interpret medical evidence presented only by deposition, the proper standard of appellate review remains whether competent substantial evidence supports the JCC's findings, not whether the appellate court would weigh the evidence differently.
[1] An appellate court reviews factual determinations in workers' compensation cases for competent substantial evidence supporting the Judge of Compensation Claims' findings.
[2] An appellate court will uphold a ruling supported by competent substantial evidence, even if persuasive evidence to the contrary exists.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary”
Establishes the fundamental standard of appellate review in workers' compensation cases—competent substantial evidence standard, not de novo review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Frederick sought additional workers' compensation medical and indemnity benefits from United Airlines and Alexsis, Inc. The Judge of Compensation…
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 Workers' Compensation Claim For Medical Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Chief Judge.
In this appeal of a workers’ compensation order denying claims for additional medical and indemnity benefits, the claimant contends that the record does not support the findings of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) that the claimant lacked credibility. He also argues that the JCC failed to give a reasonable explanation for his rejection of the expert medical testimony the claimant presented in favor of the medical records of other physicians who were not headache specialists, and that the JCC misinterpreted his expert’s testimony. He asserts that this court is in as good a position as the JCC to interpret the medical testimony, citing McCabe v. Bechtel Power Corp., 510 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We affirm.
Having reviewed the entire record, we find that competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s factual findings and that the claimant has not demonstrated that the JCC abused his discretion in ruling on the weight or credibility of any of the evidence. Although there appears to be case law support for the proposition that where none of the medical evidence is presented by live testimony, this court is in as good a position as the JCC to interpret and weigh it, it should be noted that this rule of law arose in an entirely different context, in appeals from chancellors’ decisions ruling on factual findings by special masters. These early Florida Supreme Court opinions indicate that the appellate court was not intended to usurp the factfinding prerogative of the lower tribunal, except where its factual determination was “clearly erroneous,” i.e., not supported by competent substantial evidence. See West Shore Restaurant Corp. v. Turk, 101 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1958); Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1949); Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267, 14 So. 2d 398 (1943). In Conklin v. Pruitt, 182 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert, denied, 188 So. 2d 821 (Fla.1966), this court emphasized that its proper appellate function does not include the factfinding function of the lower tribunal. More recently, this court has repeatedly reaffirmed its proper appellate role in such circumstances. In Florida Mining and Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the court rejected the suggestion that it undertake an independent review of the medical evidence presented by deposition in a workers’ compensation case:
... [T]he case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary. Swanigan v. Dobbs House, 442 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Gomez v. Jack Steinberg Neckwear, 424 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also GTE v. Miller, 642 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The resolution of such conflicts is within the fact-finding authority of the judge of compensation claims. Jefferson Stores v. Rosenfeld, 386 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
See also Pruett-Sharpe Construction v. Hayden, 654 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johnson v. Martin Paving, 659 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Wilson v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 660 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
As we recently noted in Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the standard of review for factual determinations in workers’ compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding, not whether the record contains evidence which could be interpreted to support the arguments rejected by the JCC. Attorneys handling workers’ compensation cases who do not present their appellate arguments in the context of this standard of review fail in their obligations to their clients and to this court, and risk the imposition of sanctions.
The order in this case is AFFIRMED.
BENTON, J., concurs.
ERVIN, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
E. Indus., Inc. v. Burnham, 750 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…re is not work in the national economy which Burnham can perform (step five). Because competent, substantial evidence in the record supports the findings of the JCC as to each step of the disability analysis, we affirm. Frederick v. United Airlines, 688 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(the standard of review for factual determinations is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding, not whether the record contains evidence which could be interpreted to support arguments rejected by the JCC…
-
Lahodik v. Lahodik, 969 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…y stated that “[ajttor-neys who do not present their appellate arguments in the context of this standard of review fail in their obligations to their clients and to this court, and risk the imposition of sanctions.” See Frederick v. United Airlines, 688 So. 2d 412, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). That is precisely what happened here. The trial court’s orders are AFFIRMED, Appellee is awarded appellate attorneys’ fees, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine a reasonable fee. AFFIRMED and REMANDED.…
-
Moore v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Broadspire, 987 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…See Alderman v. Fla. Plastering, 805 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Here, the JCC’s analysis of those factors is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Those findings will not be disturbed on appeal. See Frederick v. United Airlines, 688 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The award of the attorney fee is affirmed. Claimant next argues that the denial of costs related to (1) testimony admitted into evidence but not relied upon to award benefits and (2) costs associated with legal assistants…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (20 total)
- Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1949)
- Swanigan v. Dobbs House & Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 442 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Wolkowsky v. Goodkind, 153 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1943)
- Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 386 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- W. Shore Rest. Corp. v. Turk, 101 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1958)
- The City OF Miami v. Hamilton, 101 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1957)
- Clar v. The Cont'l Ins. Cos. & The Glens Falls Ins. Co., 510 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Johnson v. Martin Paving & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Fla. Mining & Materials v. Mobley, 649 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)