Cases

A decision in favor of the party without the burden of proof need not be supported by competent substantial evidence.  A JCC may reject in whole or in part even uncontroverted testimony the JCC disbelieves.

The employer/carrier's expert witness testified that the claimant's respiratory problems were related to the claimant's 17-year history of smoking rather than the claimant's alleged exposure to debris during the 11 days he worked for the employer.  It was asserted by the claimant that the claimant's IME doctor was not qualified to render such an opinion because he was not a board certifired internist or a pulmonologist.  The determination of a witness's qualifications to express an expert opinion is within the discretion of a trial judge whose decision will not be reversed absent a clear showing of error.  The court in this instance determined that the selection of an IME is not limited to a board certified physician.  The court also stated that there was no need for the testimony of the expert witness in this case to be a pulmonologist, a specialist in the treatment of respiratory disease. In this case, the employer/carrier's IME was a board certified occupational medicine specialist with extensive experience in exposure cases.  A witness may be qualified as an expert through specialized knowledge, training or education, which is not limited to academic, scientific or technical knowledge.  In this case, the doctor's extensive training and experience in exposure cases established his qualifications to opine on the disputed issues of causation.  

In the case of Heckford v. Florida Department of Corrections, 399 So. 2d 247(Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the court had excluded the admissibility of an IME report of a doctor whose opinion had been solicited exclusively and solely for litigation.  The court ruled that the McElroy case did not apply in workers' compensation cases.  There was no showing in this instance that the employer/carrier expert rendered an opinion outside of his areas of expertise as demonstrated by licensure and applicable practice parameters. Such opinion evidence would be prohibited under the specific IME provisions of Section 440.13(5)(a), Florida Statutes.