DEBRA WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, LP, AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 a workers' compensation case, a claimant appealed a Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) decision denying benefits for a knee injury by arguing the JCC abused discretion in rejecting her treating orthopedist's opinion on causation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a JCC has broad discretion to reject medical opinions, even if uncontroverted, based on the overall evidence presented.
The JCC did not abuse discretion in rejecting the treating physician's opinion. A JCC, as fact-finder, has broad discretion to accept or reject expert testimony regardless of whether it is uncontroverted, and need not provide detailed reasons for rejecting an opinion if the overall record supports the finding that the opinion was not sufficiently persuasive.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) has the discretion to reject any evidence, including uncontroverted expert testimony, that is not persuasive.
[2] A JCC is not required to provide specific reasons for rejecting the opinion of a treating physician if the record contains competent substantial evidence supporting the J…
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 may reject evidence, even uncontroverted testimony, which he does not believe”
Establishes the foundational principle that JCCs have broad discretion to reject any testimony, including uncontroverted expert opinion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant suffered a knee injury at work. Her treating orthopedist opined the workplace accident was the major contributing cause (MCC) of the injury. …
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 Medical Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Claimant seeks reversal of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) arguing the JCC abused her discretion by rejecting the opinion of an authorized orthopedist. We disagree, and affirm.
In this case, two differing medical opinions were submitted to the JCC regarding the major contributing cause (MCC) of Claimant’s knee injury. Claimant’s treating orthopedist opined the MCC of Claimant’s knee injury was her workplace accident. The employer/carrier (E/C) obtained an independent medical examiner (IME) who originally agreed with Claimant’s orthopedist, but changed his opinion after reviewing medical records that clearly demonstrated a prior problem with the knee. Because the records were inconsistent with the history Claimant provided, the IME ultimately opined the evidence was too inconclusive for him to render an opinion on MCC within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
The JCC rejected the opinion of Claimant’s treating physician, as was her prerogative, see City of West Palm Beach Fire Department v. Norman, 711 So.2d 628, 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and denied compensability of the knee condition. Claimant contends, however, the reasons provided by the JCC for rejecting the “uncontroverted” medical opinion of the treating physician were unreasonable and, thus, impermissible.
We note that a JCC may reject evidence, even uncontroverted testimony, which he does not believe. See Ullman v. *994 City of Tampa Parks Dep’t, 625 So.2d 868, 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (en banc). Nevertheless, here, we disagree with Claimant’s premise that the opinion of the treating physician was uncontroverted. Although the E/C’s IME did not contradict the treating physician’s opinion to the extent that a more preponderant cause of Claimant’s knee injury was identified, the IME’s opinion did establish a medical foundation for questioning the medical validity or weight of the treating doctor’s opinion.
Here, the JCC, after reviewing the entirety of the evidence, was simply not persuaded that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the MCC of Claimant’s knee injury was the workplace accident. This finding is supported by record evidence. Under such facts, the JCC was not required to provide a reason for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician, other than to state that the opinion of the treating physician was not sufficiently persuasive. See Mitchell v. XO Commc’ns, 966 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating claimant must present evidence JCC finds persuasive); see also Socolow v. Flanigans Enters., 877 So.2d 742, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“To uphold an order granting or denying workers’ compensation benefits, a reviewing tribunal need only determine that the record contains competent substantial evidence supporting the JCC’s conclusion; the JCC is not required to explain why he or she disregarded contradictory evidence.”); Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., 840 So.2d 1071, 1078-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (en banc) (stating the JCC need not explain precisely why he accepts testimony of one witness and rejects another as long as it does not appear he ignored or overlooked contrary testimony).
In a workers’ compensation proceeding, the JCC is the finder of fact, who, like the juries of this state, is given broad fact-finding powers. A fact-finder may accept or reject an expert’s testimony, or give it the weight deserved considering the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education of the witness, the reasons given by the witness for the opinion expressed, and all other evidence in the case.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the JCC’s rejection of the opinion of Claimant’s treating orthopedist and AFFIRM the order on appeal.
LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alvaro Quiroga v. First Baptist Church AT Weston & Guideone Ins., 124 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…y to support this novel proposition. Contrary to Claimant’s argument in this regard, this Court has consistently held that it is the JCC’s role [*938] and duty to resolve disputes in medical testimony. See, e.g., White v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LP, 16 So. 3d 992, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“In a workers’ compensation proceeding, the JCC is the finder of fact, who like the juries of this state, is given broad fact-finding powers. A fact-finder may accept or reject an expert’s testimony or give it the weight de…
-
Young v. Am. Airlines & Sedgwick, 100 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…unchallenged on appeal, but [*1170] also the recommended evaluation with a cardiologist, and PTD benefits based on the uncontroverted opinions of Dr. Klein-hans unless the JCC finds the opinions unpersuasive. See White v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LP, 16 So. 3d 992, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. MARSTILLER, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Miami Dade Cnty. Sch. Board/Gallagher Bassett v. Oneal Smith, 116 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…weight deserved upon consideration of the expert’s knowledge, skill, experience, training, the reasons underlying the opinion, or based on a multitude of factors that may implicate the witnesses’ credibility. See White v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LP, 16 So. 3d 992, 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (explaining JCC’s, like the juries of this state, have broad fact-finding powers). Thus, although it may ultimately be so that, once the Employer has the opportunity to examine the doctor in question, the resulting findings…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ullman v. City OF Tampa Parks Dep't & Alexsis, 625 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- A.M.V. v. State, 840 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Mitchell v. XO Commc'ns & Wausau/Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & XO Commc'ns & Travelers Ins. Co., 966 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Barnett Socolow v. Flanigans Enters. & Protegrity Servs., 877 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Caracciolo v. State, 711 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- City OF W. Palm Beach Fire Dept. & Johns E. v. Ernie Norman, 711 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)