Cases

This case involved conflicting medical testimony as to the cause of the claimant's injuries following an incident on the job.  The question for review was whether the JCC had jurisdiction to determine if the testimony of one of the doctors that created the medical dispute warranting the appointment of an Expert Medical Advisor as to whether the one doctor's testimony was subject to a Daubert objection. JCC determined that he did not have jurisdiction to make that determination. Court determined, however, that once a party raised a Daubert objection to the testimony of one of the physicians, the JCC had the responsibility to perform the necessary analysis, make relevant supporting findings of fact and issue a ruling as to whether medical testimony should be stricken.  The court determined that it was not their responsibility but rather the responsibility of the JCC to make that determination on admissibility of evidence. The court determined that such refusal to consider the Daubert objection was not harmless. Concurring and dissenting opinions.