CRAWFORD & COMPANY, AND FLEETWOOD HOMES OF AMERICA, APPELLANTS,
v.
TANYA BAXLA, 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.
Crawford & Company and Fleetwood Homes of America appealed a workers' compensation award of temporary total and permanent total benefits to Tanya Baxla. The appellate court affirmed the award despite finding that the JCC erroneously admitted testimony from a non-authorized physician, concluding the error was harmless because competent, substantial evidence from properly admitted testimony supported the decision.
The court affirmed the JCC's award, finding that while the admission of the non-authorized physician's testimony was error, it was harmless because competent, substantial evidence from properly admitted testimony (an authorized IME) supported the decision. The second issue was not preserved for appeal.
[1] The testimony of a physician who is not an authorized treating physician, an independent medical examiner, or a medical advisor is inadmissible in workers' compensation c…
[2] An otherwise erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if competent, substantial evidence independent of the erroneously admitted testimony supports the decision.
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“This court has consistently held that the testimony of a physician who is not a medical advisor, an IME, or an authorized treating physician is inadmissible in workers' compensation cases.”
Establishes the legal principle that unauthorized physician testimony is inadmissible in workers' compensation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTanya Baxla was injured in an industrial accident and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Judge of Compensation Claims admitted testimony from …
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 Authorized Treating Physician cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Appellants, Crawford & Company and Fleetwood Homes of America (collectively “Appellants”), appeal the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which awarded temporary total and permanent total benefits to the Appellee, Tanya Baxla (Baxla). Appellants argue the JCC reversibly erred on two rulings: 1) by admitting the medical testimony of a physician who was neither an authorized treating physician nor an independent medical examiner (IME); and, 2) by finding treatment rendered to Baxla on April 3, 1997, tolled the statute of limitations, even though the treating physician testified he could not causally relate the treatment to the industrial accident.
We affirm the decision of the JCC, finding the first ruling, while error, was harmless for the reasons herein stated, and the second ruling was not preserved for appeal.
The standard of review is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the decision below. Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). This court has consistently held that the testimony of a physician who is not a medical advisor, an IME, or an authorized treating physician is inadmissible in workers’ compensation cases. Johns Eastern Company, Inc. v. Matta, 717 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bassett v. Laber, 722 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Thus, in the case at bar, the JCC clearly erred in admitting, and relying upon, the testimony of a physician who was not a medical advisor, an IME, or an authorized treating physician.
However, under the facts of this case, the error was harmless because the testimony of a physician who was authorized as an IME essentially mirrored the improperly admitted testimony, and his testimony was also relied upon by the JCC. Because the record contains competent, substantial evidence independent of the erroneously admitted testimony, the JCC must be affirmed. Scott v. Bisanti Services, Inc., 634 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Compton & Associates v. Wilkerson, 580 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Notwithstanding this decision, we remind the JCC that the erroneous admission of such testimony evidences inattention to long-recognized principles of law. The affirmance rendered under the facts presented in the case at bar should be viewed as a rare exception. In the future, such an erroneous admission will, in all likelihood, not be considered harmless and will result in reversal with the attendant inconvenience and expense. Matta, 717 So. 2d at 91; Bassett, 722 So. 2d at 834.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witham v. Sheehan Pipeline Constr. Co. & Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 45 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…umulative evidence do not stand for the proposition that an error in the admission of evidence is harmless simply because there is additional admissible evidence in the record to support the ultimate result below. See, e.g., Crawford & Co. v. Baxla, 746 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding JCC’s error in admitting and relying upon inadmissible medical testimony was harmless where JCC also relied upon testimony of authorized IME, which essentially mirrored improperly admitted testimony, but explaining…
-
Horticulture Plus, Inc. v. ASH, 791 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…field and otherwise within the field of another physician; “[w]e reject the E/C’s argument that the statute permits multiple IME’s by physicians of different specialties”). We cannot say that the error was harmless. See Crawford & Company v. Baxla, 746 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(admission of unauthorized physician testimony was erroneous, and although considered harmless in this case, “[i]n the future, such an erroneous admission will, in all likelihood, not be considered harmless and will result in…
-
Crenshaw v. Florida Apple, 915 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Crawford & Co. v. Baxla, 746 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). [*776] ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., concurs in result.…
Authorities Cited
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Manning, 685 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Gallagher Bassett & Valencia Cmty. Coll. v. Laber, 722 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Matta, 717 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Scott v. Bisanti Servs., Inc., 634 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Bush v. State, 580 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Bell v. State, 580 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)