Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc.
Decision Date | 03 February 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 1D00-3467.,1D00-3467. |
Parties | Elva CHAVARRIA, Appellant, v. SELUGAL CLOTHING, INC., Clarendon National Insurance Co. and Stirling Cooke Insurance Services, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles E. Bloom, of Bloom & Kinnear, Miami, and Randy D. Ellison, West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
Robert L. Teitler and Lazaro C. Rodriguez of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, Miami for Appellees.
EN BANC.
In this workers' compensation case, physicians gave expert testimony that, in some regards, was not consonant with testimony given by other physicians. The judge of compensation claims (JCC), as trier of fact, chose to credit portions of certain expert testimony over portions of other expert testimony. The disciplines involved are orthopedics and psychiatry. Because the JCC followed the rule required by both statute and supreme court precedent, we affirm.
Appellant Elva Chavarria suffered a significant crush injury to her right hand as the result of an industrial accident on September 10, 1996. The JCC rejected the testimony of two orthopedists concerning the degree of physical impairment in favor of evidence provided by Chavarria's longtime treating physician. The JCC also accepted psychiatric testimony concerning degree of impairment that differed from other testimony.
The issue concerning the orthopedic testimony centers upon a difference between the testimony of Dr. Richard Rogachefsky and Dr. Jay Dennis. The JCC made the following observations concerning the orthopedic testimony:
The JCC made the following findings with regard to the psychiatric testimony:
Claimant has never argued, either before the JCC or before this court, that the evidence provided by Dr. Rogachefsky or Dr. Espinosa was legally incompetent and, therefore, could not serve as the basis for a decision. Cf., e.g., Rinker Materials Corp. v. Hill, 471 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
(. ) Although Dr. Rogachefsky provided his orthopedic impairment rating as part of his medical chart rather than in testimony, "[a]ll medical reports of authorized treating health care providers relating to the claimant and subject accident shall be received into evidence by the judge of compensation claims upon proper motion." § 440.29(4), Fla. Stat. (1999). Nevertheless, appellant argues on appeal that under certain case law, the JCC failed to provide adequate reasons for acceptance of the Rogachefsky and Espinosa opinions.
Workers' compensation law in Florida is statutory. See Thompson v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 224 So.2d 286, 287 (Fla.1969)
( ); Fournigault v. Jackson Mem'l Hosp. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 87 So.2d 102, 104 (Fla.1956) (). For this reason, court decisions in the area of workers'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg
...McKalip. The JCC, as the fact-finder, was responsible for resolving these conflicts in evidence.20See Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., 840 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (en banc) (reaffirming Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 386 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), in which the court hel......
-
Punsky v. Clay County Sheriff's Office
...by our occasional erroneous practice of appellate reweighing of evidence. As this court explained in Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., 840 So.2d 1071, 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), "the controlling rule for review of workers' compensation orders is `whether there is substantial competent evi......
-
Prather v. Process Systems
...on her testimony and the testimony of the doctors as a whole, which he had a right to do. See Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., 840 So.2d 1071, 1076 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ("Even in cases which must be resolved upon a true appraisal of testimony of medical experts, the deputy commissio......
-
IMC Phosphates Co. v. Prater
...we shall not disturb the award of attendant care benefits on the first ground asserted by E/C. See Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., 840 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). As to E/C's second ground for challenging this award — the alleged lack of CSE and findings to show that attendant care......