Trevino v. Department of Revenue and Division of Risk Management, State of Florida
36 FLW D1581
Claimant on appeal alleged that JCC's rejection of EMA findings was not supported by record evidence. The opinions of the EMA are presumed to be correct unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary as determined by the JCC. In this case, however, the court found that the JCC did not reject the EMA's opinion. Rather, the JCC interpreted the EMA's opinion differently from that of the claimant. Competent and substantial evidence supported the JCC's interpretation of the doctor's recommendations.
The claimant also alleged that the JCC erred in not adopting the opinion of the EMA regarding recommendations for the treatment of the claimant's lumbar spine because the JCC did not recite clear and convincing evidence in support of his denial of the claim for lumbar treatment. The JCC specificially found, however, that the EMA made no recommendations for lumbar treatment.
It is the claimant's burden to prove entitlement to any requested benefit. When the JCC denied the treatment for the lumbar spine evaluation, concluding that claimant did not meet her burden of proof, it was unnecessary that competent and substantial evidence support the JCC's denial of benefits. A decision in favor of the party without the burden of proof need not be supported by competent and substantiale evidence.