Cases

(On Motion for Rehearing and written opinion) On the morning of the final hearing, the employer/carrier moved to admit surveillance film or alternatively to continue the final hearing.  Also, the employer/carrier moved to amend the pre-trial stipulation to add a misrepresentation defense or alternatively to continue the final hearing. The motions were denied by the JCC finding prejudice to the claimant and no good cause for the employer/carrier's delay in adding the surveillance films and adding witnesses.  The JCC also found that the late addition of a misrepresentation defense would violate claimant's due process rights.

Court determined that findings made by JCC was supported by competent and substantial evidence.  The primary inquiry in regards to adding witnesses or new defenses to a pre-trial stipulation is whether there is prejudice to the objecting party.  

The standard for review in determining an order from the JCC denying a Motion to Amend the Pre-trial Stipulation is abuse of discretion.  In the original pre-trial stipulation, the employer/carrier listed "surveillance rep, if any."  This note is in contravention of the instruction "to list the specific full names of all witnesses" as well as to specify "live or by deposition." The efforts made by the employer/carrier to add the defenses and the subject of other motions was not just a clarification of the witness list as argued by the employer/carrier.  The court determined that the attempts at amending the pre-trial stipulation was nothing more than the employer/carrier, upon receipt and review of the surveillance, deciding to change their litigation strategy which does not justify amending a pre-trial stipulation. A party's mere change of litigation strategy without more, provides insufficient grounds to set aside a binding stipulation agreement.