CHARLOTTE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND EMPLOYERS MUTUAL, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
KARYN E. GARY, 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.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed an award of hearing aids because the claimant failed to introduce sufficient medical evidence establishing a causal relationship between her compensable workplace accident and her hearing loss, despite the rejection of the treating physician's conflicting opinion about pre-existing conditions.
The court reversed the award of hearing aids and associated attorney's fees because the claimant failed to introduce medical evidence proving, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that her hearing loss was causally related to her compensable accident. The mere rejection of the treating physician's testimony regarding pre-existing conditions did not establish the required causal nexus. The court affirmed the denial of the misrepresentation defense and the award of the orthopedic evaluation.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims has the prerogative to reject a treating physician's opinion regarding the pre-existing nature of a claimant's hearing loss if that opinion…
[2] A claimant must introduce medical evidence proving, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that a hearing loss is causally related to a compensable accident.
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“the JCC has the prerogative to reject even uncontroverted testimony which is unpersuasive”
Establishes that the trial judge's rejection of the treating physician's testimony was within discretion, but also indicates rejection alone does not resolve the causal relationship requirement.
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 workplace accident and sought workers' compensation benefits. Her authorized treating otolaryngologist initially recommended heari…
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 Misrepresentation Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the employer/earrier (E/C) seeks reversal of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which denies its misrepresentation defense, and awards hearing aids and an orthopedic evaluation. The E/C raises four issues. We reverse only as to the award of hearing aids and the award of attorney’s fees pertaining thereto. We affirm the remaining points on appeal without discussion.
Here, Claimant’s authorized treating otolaryngologist initially recom*396mended hearing aids, but testified she changed her opinion as to the cause of Claimant’s hearing loss based on self-described symptoms that Claimant had previously reported to her allergist. The JCC rejected the treating physician’s opinion regarding the pre-existing nature of Claimant’s hearing loss because it was based on assumptions which were found to be faulty and not borne out by medical evidence. The JCC has the prerogative to reject the treating physician’s opinion regarding the preexisting nature of Claimant’s hearing loss. See, e.g., White v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LP, 16 So.3d 992, 993-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (stating a JCC has the prerogative to reject even uncon-troverted testimony which is unpersuasive). Nevertheless, the JCC’s mere rejection of this testimony did not, ipso facto, establish the requisite causal relationship between Claimant’s accident and her hearing loss. Rather, Claimant had to introduce medical evidence proving that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, her hearing loss was causally related to her compensable accident. See § 440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). Although Claimant’s counsel attempted to obtain such evidence by posing appropriate hypothetical questions to the treating otolaryn-gologist, the doctor was unwilling to make any concessions which might have served as a sufficient evidentiary basis for this court’s affirmance of the award of hearing aids. Because no other qualified expert testified on the cause of Claimant’s hearing loss, we REVERSE the award of hearing aids and attorneys fees pertaining thereto, and AFFIRM the remainder of the order in all other respects.
HAWKES, C.J., KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.