KFC/YUM! BRANDS AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
BENJAMIN MOORE, 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, KFC/YUM! Brands and their carrier challenged the Judge of Compensation Claims' acceptance of the claimant's treating physician's opinion that a compensable aggravation had not abated and required continued treatment. The appellate court summarily affirmed, finding that the physician's testimony constituted competent substantial evidence supporting the lower court's factual findings.
The appellate court affirmed the JCC's decision, holding that Dr. Florete's testimony, taken as a whole, was neither unreasonable nor illogical, had a legally sufficient foundation, and constituted competent substantial evidence to support the JCC's findings.
[1] A Judge of Compensation Claims' factual findings in a workers' compensation case are supported by competent substantial evidence when the accepted medical opinion is neit…
[2] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of a Judge of Compensation Claims on factual matters supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 substance of Dr. Florete's testimony, when taken as a whole, is neither unreasonable nor illogical, has a legally sufficient foundation, and is thus, competent substantial evidence to support the JCC's findings”
Establishes the holding that the treating physician's opinion was competent substantial evidence supporting the lower court's factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant had a preexisting condition that was aggravated in a work-related injury compensable under workers' compensation. The claimant's longtime…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, the employer/carrier (E/C) argue that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in accepting the opinion of the claimant’s “longtime treating physician,” Dr. Florete, that the compensable aggravation to the claimant’s preexisting condition had not abated and required continued medical treatment. The E/C contend that because of an alleged conflict between one aspect of Dr. Florete’s testimony and the claimant’s medical history, the JCC should have rejected Dr. Florete’s opinion and instead accepted the opinion of Dr. Orr, who testified on behalf of the E/C that the aggravation to the claimant’s preexisting condition had abated. We summarily affirm pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) because the substance of Dr. Flo-rete’s testimony, when taken as a whole, is neither unreasonable nor illogical, has a legally sufficient foundation, and is thus, competent substantial evidence to support the JCC’s findings. See Fla. Detroit Diesel v. Nathai, 28 So.3d 182, 184-85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (summarily affirming a workers’ compensation appeal that challenged a factual finding made by the JCC which was supported by competent substantial evidence); see also Wintz v. Goodwill, 898 So.2d 1089, 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (explaining that the “standard of review in worker’s compensation cases is whether competent substantial evidence supports the decision below, not whether it is possible to recite contradictory record evidence which supported the arguments rejected below” (quoting Mercy Hosp. v. Holmes, 679 So.2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996))); Swanigan v. Dobbs House, 442 So.2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (explaining that this court will not “substitute [its] judgment for that of the [JCC] on factual matters supported by competent, substantial evidence, and appeals asking us to do so are frivolous”).
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, DAVIS and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Swanigan v. Dobbs House & Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 442 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Fla. Detroit Diesel & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Yaadram Nathai, 28 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Mercy Hosp. & Multiline Claims Serv., Inc. v. Holmes, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Wintz v. Goodwill & Summit Claims Mgmt., 898 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Myrle F. Belin v. Colin Mitchel, 679 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)