Narrative Opinion Summary
Appellants Jacaranda Manor and Crawford Company contest a workers' compensation order in which the judge favored the opinions of two treating physicians over that of an expert medical advisor. The judge's decision was based on the treating doctors' superior expertise and familiarity with the claimant’s condition. The court determined that the statutory presumption of correctness for the expert's opinion, as outlined in section 440.13(9)(c) of the Florida Statutes, was effectively rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. This finding aligns with precedent established in McKesson Drug Co. v. Williams, confirming that the determination will not be overturned on appeal as it is supported by competent substantial evidence. The order is affirmed, with Judges Ervin and Davis concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Competent Substantial Evidence in Workers' Compensation Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judge's determination, supported by competent substantial evidence, is upheld on appeal, following the precedent that such decisions will not be overturned if adequately supported.
Reasoning: This finding aligns with precedent established in McKesson Drug Co. v. Williams, confirming that the determination will not be overturned on appeal as it is supported by competent substantial evidence.
Judicial Discretion in Weighing Medical Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judges may exercise discretion to weigh the expertise and familiarity of treating physicians over expert medical advisors when determining workers' compensation benefits.
Reasoning: Appellants Jacaranda Manor and Crawford Company contest a workers' compensation order in which the judge favored the opinions of two treating physicians over that of an expert medical advisor.
Statutory Presumption of Correctness under Section 440.13(9)(c) of the Florida Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The statutory presumption of correctness for an expert medical advisor's opinion can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, allowing the judge to favor the opinions of treating physicians.
Reasoning: The court determined that the statutory presumption of correctness for the expert's opinion, as outlined in section 440.13(9)(c) of the Florida Statutes, was effectively rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.