Jeffers v. Pan Am. Envelope Co., 33748

Citation172 So.2d 577
Decision Date10 March 1965
Docket NumberNo. 33748,33748
PartiesMaxine JEFFERS, Petitioner, v. PAN AMERICAN ENVELOPE COMPANY, Iowa Home Mutual Casualty Co., and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

John V. Christie and Allen Clements, Miami, for petitioner.

Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

THORNAL, Justice.

We have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission which reversed an order of a deputy who had awarded additional benefits to an employee because of a change in her condition.

The principal point for decision is whether a deputy commissioner may rely upon lay testimony as against medical testimony in a modification proceeding.

Claimant Maxine Jeffers sustained a compensable industrial injury on February 3, 1960. She was paid temporary total disability benefits until maximum medical recovery on October 5, 1960. On February 17, 1961, the parties entered into a written stipulation which was approved by a deputy commissioner. The stipulation provided for compensation benefits on the basis of a 20% permanent partial disability.

On October 12, 1962, claimant filed a petition for modification, based upon 'a change in claimant's condition and/or mistake in fact.' After hearing the testimony of a number of witnesses, both lay and medical, the deputy found a change in the physical condition of the claimant following the stipulation of February 17, 1961. He found that at the time of his order, December 19, 1963, she was suffering a 45% permanent partial disability of the body as a whole. Upon review the Full Commission disagreed with the deputy and held that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the modification petition. In effect the Full Commission held that since this was a modification proceeding the burden was on the claimant to prove a change in her condition 'which the medical testimony has not shown'. Hence, it concluded that no additional benefits could be awarded. We have this order for review.

The employer argued before the Full Commission, and argued here, that the deputy committed error in granting the petition for modification where there was no medical evidence to support it. The Full Commission appears to have agreed. It seemed to be their view that a modification order could not be entered on the basis of physical evidence and lay testimony in the face of contrary medical opinion.

It is now established that in a workmen's compensation matter the deputy commissioner should consider and evaluate all of the evidence, both lay and professional. Admittedly, the opinions of the doctors are not to be lightly brushed aside. Nevertheless, it is altogether appropriate in a proper case for the deputy to give greater weight to physical evidence and lay testimony than he accords to the scientific opinions of the experts. Star Fruit Co. v. Canday, 159 Fla. 488, 32...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ullman v. City of Tampa Parks Dept., 91-3048
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 15, 1993
    ...and may give greater weight to physical evidence and lay testimony than to scientific opinions of experts. Jeffers v. Pan American Envelope Co., 172 So.2d 577 (Fla.1965). The foregoing cases, which properly define the JCC's role as finder of fact, also accord well with the standard jury ins......
  • Holiday Foliage v. Anderson, 93-1598
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 7, 1994
    ...of the experts. When the JCC relies on one as against the other, he should state reasons for doing so. Jeffers v. Pan American Envelope Co., 172 So.2d 577, 578 (Fla.1965). In a proper case, the JCC can rely upon lay testimony, even if it directly conflicts with medical testimony. McCandless......
  • Delgado v. Blanco & Sons Catering, 91-1850
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 17, 1992
    ...and may give greater weight to physical evidence and lay testimony than to scientific opinions of experts. Jeffers v. Pan American Envelope Co., 172 So.2d 577 (Fla.1965). Accordingly, a review of the entire record, and not merely Dr. Reddy's opinion testimony, is necessitated. Nonetheless, ......
  • Prather v. Process Systems, 1D01-4925.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 13, 2004
    ...opinions of experts. GTE v. Miller, 642 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (citing Ullman, 625 So.2d at 873; Jeffers v. Pan Am. Envelope Co., 172 So.2d 577 (Fla.1965)). In denying claimant's petition for benefits, the JCC also rejected the expert medical advisor's recommendation in favor ......
  • 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