Cases

JCC admitted into evidence the testimony of the claimant's IME in establishing the compensability of a mold exposure case.  Court determined that JCC erred in admitting testimony from expert.  A JCC's decision to admit evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

The court reaffirmed previous findings that the Florida Evidence Code applies to workers' compensation proceedings.  Court determined in this case that the claimant did not supply a sufficient evidentiary basis for concluding that claimant was exposed to mold in her workplace or that the mold exposure at work was the major contributing cause of the claimant's symptoms. 

The claimant's IME doctor improperly bolstered his opinions by the professional opinions and reports of others.  An expert's reference to other expert's opinions and publications as to occupational causation is relying upon incompetent evidence.  The IME of the claimant also bolstered his testimony with opinions of another doctor who he had talked to about such exposures.  Such reliance upon other doctors' opinions did not constitute a situation where the IME doctor relied upon his own independent opinion.  The court also determined that the IME doctor also relied on inadmissible medical records of the claimant's co-workers to bolster his opinion.  Such reliance is improper.

The court also determined that the IME testimony lacked a sufficient factual foundation to establish occupational causation.  There must be testimony as to the specific substance involved in the exposure at levels causing injury which the expert in this instance did not testify to.  

In conclusion, the JCC abused his discretion when he admitted into evidence the testimony of the claimant's IME doctor supporting occupational causation for the claimant's medical problems.