GEORGE CROMARTIE, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, 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.
The court held that the judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting the expert medical advisor's opinion without clear and convincing evidence.
[1] An expert medical advisor's opinion in a workers' compensation case is presumed to be correct and may only be rejected based on clear and convincing evidence.
[2] A judge of compensation claims must have competent and substantial evidence to support a determination that clear and convincing evidence exists to reject an expert medic…
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 intelligenceA claimant sought review of an order denying a petition for psychological/psychiatric care following a workplace accident. The judge of compensation c…
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 Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, the claimant seeks review of an order denying his petition requesting psychological and/or psychiatric care. Because we agree with the claimant that the record does not contain competent and substantial evidence to support the determination of the judge of compensation claims that clear and convincing evidence existed sufficient to reject the appointed expert medical advisor’s opinion that the claimant had sustained a psychiatric injury as a result of the compensable workplace accident, we reverse.
We have held that “an expert medical advisor’s opinion has ‘nearly conclusive effect,’ ” and that it “is presumed to be correct and may only be rejected on the basis of clear and convincing evidence.” Walgreen Co. v. Carver, 770 So. 2d 172, 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). As was the case in Walgreen, so here, our review of the record reveals no competent and substantial evidence to support the judge’s determination that clear and convincing evidence existed sufficient to reject the expert medical advisor’s opinion that the claimant had sustained a psychiatric injury as a result of the compensable workplace accident. The principal basis for the judge’s determination was her conclusion that the expert medical advisor based his opinion on a faulty assumption — that the claimant had sustained a closed head injury as a result of the accident. However, as the record clearly reveals, this was merely one of many areas in which the opinions of the numerous medical experts disagreed. Resolution of such disagreements is precisely why the opinions of expert medical advisors are to be accorded “ ‘nearly conclusive effect.’ ” Id.
The order is reversed. On remand, the judge shall enter an order granting the claimant’s petition requesting psychological and/or psychiatric care. Because we reverse the denial of psychological and/or psychiatric care, we must also reverse the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs, and direct the judge to revisit that issue.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wisznia v. Leon Cnty. Div. OF Animal Control & Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions, 902 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ICATION PER CURIAM. We grant appellees’ Motion for Rehearing and/or Clarification to the extent that we withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following: In this workers’ compensation case, as in Cromartie v. City of St. Petersburg, 882 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), our review of the record satisfies us that the record does not contain competent and substantial evidence to support the determination of the judge of compensation claims that clear and convincing evidence existed sufficient to…
-
Manuel v. Amstaff & Liberty Mut., 915 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…evidence to support a determination that clear and convincing evidence [*681] existed sufficient to reject the EMA’s opinion that claimant sustained a psychiatric injury as a result of his compensable accident); Cromartie v. City of St. Petersburg, 882 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Walgreen Co. v. Carver, 770 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse the second issue on appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NOR…
Authorities Cited
- Walgreen Co. & Kemper Ins. Co. v. Carver, 770 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)