Cases

The question in this case is whether a toxicologist can testify as to the major contributing cause of the claimant's medical condition and whether such condition was occupationally caused.  According to Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (2007), medical causation must be established by medical testimony only.  The question in this case is whether the claimant's collapse on the job was caused by chronic alcoholism or a heat stroke.  Although the toxicologist's testimony is admissible with respect to scientific methods and principles, alcohol abuse, and the consequences of long term alcoholism, he was not qualified to testify as to the medical cause of the claimant's injuries.

Even though the toxicologist could not testify as to medical cause, the employer/carrier argued that the JCC's reliance on this inadmissible testimony was harmless.  An error in the introduction of evidence may be considered harmless if the evidence is merely cumulative of other evidence that was properly introduced.  Cumulative evidence means unnecessary evidence or evidence so repetitive that, notwithstanding its exclusion, it is not reasonably likely that a different result would have occurred if such evidence was excluded.  The employer/carrier had argued that the toxicologically evidence was harmless since there was other evidence of record to support the JCC's ultimate conclusion.  Court ruled, however, that where the admission of expert testimony turns on the weight of such testimony, introduction of non-admissible evidence constitutes harmful error.  Because of the fact that the compensability of this case depended upon which expert testimony (conflicting) was to be believed by the JCC, the court determined that the admission into evidence of non-admissible expert testimony was reversable error.