LAURA MANUEL, APPELLANT,
v.
AMSTAFF AND LIBERTY MUTUAL, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the judge of compensation claims' rejection of an expert medical advisor's opinion that claimant's work injury was the major contributing cause of her psychiatric condition. The court found the record lacked competent and substantial evidence supporting the JCC's determination that clear and convincing evidence existed to reject the EMA's opinion.
The court reversed the JCC's rejection of the EMA opinion because the record did not contain competent and substantial evidence supporting the JCC's determination that clear and convincing evidence existed sufficient to reject the EMA's opinion. Mere contradiction between the EMA and a disagreeing physician is insufficient grounds for rejection, as the EMA is appointed specifically with the expectation that testimony may contradict other health care providers.
[1] A judge of compensation claims' rejection of an expert medical advisor's opinion is not disturbed on appeal if based upon competent and substantial evidence that the judg…
[2] A contradiction between an expert medical advisor and a disagreeing physician, standing alone, does not constitute a reasonable basis for a judge of compensation claims t…
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“A JCC's rejection of the opinion of an EMA will not be disturbed on appeal where it is based upon competent and substantial evidence which the JCC could reasonably find clear and convincing.”
Establishes the standard of review for EMA opinion rejection in workers' compensation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaura Manuel suffered a work injury to her neck and shoulder on February 5, 2001. Medical testimony conflicted regarding whether this work accident wa…
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 Major Contributing Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, Laura Manuel, claimant, appeals a final order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC), arguing that the JCC erred in rejecting the opinion of an expert medical advisor (EMA) which had concluded that claimant’s February 2001 work injury was the major contributing cause of her major depression and pain disorder. Because the record does not contain competent and substantial evidence to support the determination of the JCC that clear and convincing evidence existed sufficient to reject the EMA opinion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
A JCC’s rejection of the opinion of an EMA will not be disturbed on appeal where it is based upon competent and substantial evidence which the JCC could reasonably find clear and convincing. Burns v. Hilton Enterprises, 853 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Contradiction between the EMA and one of the disagreeing physicians is not, by itself, a reasonable basis for the JCC to reject the EMA’s opinion since, under section 440.13(9), Florida Statutes (2001), the EMA is appointed with the expectation that the EMA’s testimony will contradict the record testimony of one of the health care providers. Id.
Here, the medical testimony was in conflict concerning whether the claimant’s work accident was the major contributing cause of her psychological condition. At the request of claimant, the JCC appointed an EMA. In both her report and testimony, the EMA opined that the work injury was the major contributing cause of the claimant’s condition. The JCC rejected the basis for the EMA’s opinion, however, and found that the claimant had “not shown that her mental injury or manifestation is directly and proximately caused by or linked to claimant’s physical injury to her neck and shoulder of February 5, 2001.”
We have reviewed the record and find that it does not contain competent and substantial evidence to support a determination by the JCC that clear and convincing evidence exists sufficient to reject the opinion of the EMA. See Wisznia v. Leon County Div. of Animal Control, 902 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(reversing where there was an absence of competent substantial evidence to support a determination that clear and convincing evidence 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 NORTWICK, JJ., concur. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Walgreen Co. & Kemper Ins. Co. v. Carver, 770 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Wisznia v. Leon Cnty. Div. OF Animal Control & Preferred Governmental Claims Solutions, 902 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Depart v. Nicodemo MacRi and Joni Macri, 902 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Burns v. Hilton Enters. & Feisco Risk, 853 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Williams v. State, 882 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Cromartie v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 882 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)