ITT/PALM COAST UTILITIES AND CIGNA, APPELLANTS,
v.
GLAISTER DOUGLAS, 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 court held that hearsay documents, not falling within statutory exceptions or rules for medical reports, were improperly admitted into evidence in a workers' compensation proceeding.
An employer and its insurance carrier appealed an order on compensability, arguing the judge of compensation claims improperly relied on hearsay docum…
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.
BENTON, Judge.
An employer and its insurance carrier ask us to overturn an order on compensability. The order states that the judge of compensation claims relied on certain documents in reaching his decision. The documents in question — a medical narrative and a separate addendum — are hearsay which does not fall within the exceptions set out in section 90.803(4) or (6), Florida Statutes (1995). Scotty’s, Inc. v. Sarandrea, 645 So. 2d 121, 123 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (doctor’s letter inadmissible hearsay); Lowe’s of Tallahassee v. Giaimo, 552 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Odom v. Wekiva Concrete Prods., 443 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
If these documents, exhibits which were created for purposes of litigation with the assistance of — one was drafted by— claimant’s counsel, are viewed as “medical reports,” they fall outside the scope of section 440.29(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and Florida Rule of Workers’ Compensation Procedure 4.065(k), which render admissible medical reports only of authorized treating physicians. See Rucker v. City of Ocala, 684 So. 2d 886, 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), review dismissed, 689 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1997). Here compensability was contested and no physician had been authorized to treat the claimant.
Both documents were nevertheless received in evidence — over objection which all concerned understood to be on hearsay grounds — and became the explicit basis for the order under review. “The Florida Evidence Code applies to workers’ compensation proceedings.” Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Mem’l Hosp., 621 So. 2d 1380, 1382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Sarandrea; Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Giaimo; Odom. The documents’ admission was error. The use made of them precludes any claim that the error was harmless.
The order on compensability is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E-Z Serve Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Luthene C. Paul, 720 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…elephonic testimony as establishing the industrial accident as the major contributing cause of Ms. Paul’s need for treatment. “The use of [the telephonic testimony] precludes any claim that the error was harmless.” ITT/Palm Coast Utils. v. Douglas, 696 So. 2d 390, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). See State v. Arroyo, 422 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Reversed. VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.…
-
Tutor Time Child Care/Learning Ctrs. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Laylita Patterson, 91 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ness records hearsay exception and to establish the authenticity of the records. Section 440.29(4) relates only to the reports of physicians authorized by the E/C to provide the claimant with medical treatment. See ITT/Palm Coast Utils. v. Douglas, 696 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reversing JCC’s receipt into evidence, over claimant’s objection, of medical narrative and addendum created for purposes of litigation, because they fell outside scope of section 440.29(4)). Thus, these records are readily avail…
-
Vaughan v. Broward Gen. Med. Ctr. & N. Broward Hosp. Dist. Risk Mgmt, 105 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ins the MCC of the need for the recommended treatment. Moreover, the document in question—a doctor’s letter— is hearsay not within the exceptions set out in sections 90.803(4) or (6), Florida Statutes (2011). ITT/Palm Coast Utils., CIGNA v. Douglas, 696 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (citing Scotty’s, Inc. v. Sarandrea, 645 So. 2d 121, 123 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding doctor’s letter is inadmissible hearsay)). Under these facts, the JCC erred in admitting and independently relying upon the 2009 correspon…
Authorities Cited
- Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Mem'l Hosp. & State of Florida/Division of Risk Mgmt., 621 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Lowe's OF Tallahassee & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Giaimo, 552 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Amos Odom v. Wekiva Concrete Prods. & Aetna Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Martin Marietta Corp. & Scott Wetzel Servs. v. J.E. Roop, 566 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Scotty's, Inc. v. Sarandrea, 645 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Baxter v. Baxter, 684 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)