566 So.2d 40 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1990), 89-1989, Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop

Docket Nº89-1989.
Citation566 So.2d 40, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D 2141
Opinion JudgeAuthor: Shivers
Party NameMARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION and Scott Wetzel Services, Appellants, v. J.E. ROOP, Appellee.
AttorneyJames M. Hess, of Langston, Hess & Daniels, P.A., Maitland, for Appellants.
Case DateAugust 22, 1990
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US), First District

Page 40

566 So.2d 40 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1990)

15 Fla. L. Weekly D 2141

MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION and Scott Wetzel Services, Appellants,

v.

J.E. ROOP, Appellee.

No. 89-1989.

Florida Court of Appeals, First District.

August 22, 1990

Page 41

James M. Hess, of Langston, Hess & Daniels, P.A., Maitland, for appellants.

Bill McCabe, of Shepherd, McCabe & Cooley, Longwood, and J. David Parrish, of Hurt & Parrish, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

We find competent, substantial evidence in this workers' compensation case to support all the findings and awards of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) but that of permanent total disability. We also discuss the JCC's admission into evidence of the entire transcript from Martin Marietta Corp. v. Glumb, 523 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

The JCC carefully detailed the medical findings that he accepted regarding claimant's back, exposure to toxic chemicals, and his hearing loss. Orthopedist, Dr. Stanford, and anesthesiologist, Dr. Mauriello, both of whose testimony the JCC accepted, rated claimant between 15 and 20 percent permanently physically impaired due to his compensable back injury and placed considerable restrictions on him. The employer/carrier (E/C) does not challenge the medical opinion relating claimant's 38 percent hearing loss to his work. Dr. Myint, a specialist in industrial medicine and toxicology, testified that claimant was unable to return to work because of his exposure to toxic chemicals at Martin Marietta. This medical evidence combined with the JCC's consideration of such factors as claimant's age, limited education and work history, present compelling grounds for affirmance of the PTD award. However, the E/C points out that the JCC's November 21, 1988 MMI date was that opined to by Dr. Mauriello, the anesthesiologist who testified only on claimant's back condition. Doctors Stanford and Mauriello, upon whom the JCC relied for orthopedic findings, felt claimant's back condition did not preclude some kind of uninterrupted light work. There is no other orthopedic testimony in the record to the contrary. Dr. Myint testified that claimant was not at maximum medical improvement from his chemical exposure condition and the JCC

Page 42

did not discuss claimant's potential in this regard. As in Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Rollins, 390 So.2d 93, 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), "[a]lthough there is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • United States Sugar Corp v. Henson, 060602 FLSC, 01-1127
    • United States
    • June 6, 2002
    ...proceedings. See Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Mem'l Hosp., 621 So. 2d 1380, 1382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see generally Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence §103.3 (2001 ed.). Additionally, as stated in the opinion of the court......
  • 621 So.2d 1380 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1993), 91-3297, Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Memorial Hosp.
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) First District
    • July 7, 1993
    ...is not so in this case. The Florida Evidence Code applies to workers' compensation proceedings. See, e.g., Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Odom v. Wekiva Concrete Products, 443 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). This includes section 90.702, which relates to tes......
  • 105 So.3d 569 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2012), 1D12-0491, Vaughan v. Broward General Medical Center
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) First District
    • December 19, 2012
    ...hearings from the rules of evidence. Amos v. Gartner, Inc., 17 So.3d 829, 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). Authentication of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. See § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (201......
  • 17 So.3d 829 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2009), 1D08-6211, Amos v. Gartner, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) First District
    • August 21, 2009
    ...in the workers' compensation law, excepts workers' compensation hearings from the rules of evidence. See Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Authentication of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. See § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2008)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • United States Sugar Corp v. Henson, 060602 FLSC, 01-1127
    • United States
    • June 6, 2002
    ...proceedings. See Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Mem'l Hosp., 621 So. 2d 1380, 1382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see generally Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence §103.3 (2001 ed.). Additionally, as stated in the opinion of the court......
  • 621 So.2d 1380 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1993), 91-3297, Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Memorial Hosp.
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) First District
    • July 7, 1993
    ...is not so in this case. The Florida Evidence Code applies to workers' compensation proceedings. See, e.g., Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Odom v. Wekiva Concrete Products, 443 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). This includes section 90.702, which relates to tes......
  • 105 So.3d 569 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2012), 1D12-0491, Vaughan v. Broward General Medical Center
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) First District
    • December 19, 2012
    ...hearings from the rules of evidence. Amos v. Gartner, Inc., 17 So.3d 829, 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). Authentication of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. See § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (201......
  • 17 So.3d 829 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2009), 1D08-6211, Amos v. Gartner, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) First District
    • August 21, 2009
    ...in the workers' compensation law, excepts workers' compensation hearings from the rules of evidence. See Martin Marietta Corp. v. Roop, 566 So.2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Authentication of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. See § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2008)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT