Mitchell v. Xo Communications
| Decision Date | 15 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D06-5476.,1D06-5476. |
| Citation | 966 So.2d 489 |
| Parties | James MITCHELL, Appellant, v. XO COMMUNICATIONS and Wausau/Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and XO Communications and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Claimant, James Mitchell, appeals the Judge of Compensation Claims' (JCC) order denying his claims for permanent total disability and permanent total supplemental disability benefits. Claimant argues that many of the JCC's findings regarding his ability to work, and the permanent impairment ratings (PIR) attributable to his compensable injury, are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Claimant's argument is flawed. A decision in favor of the party without the burden of proof is not required to be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Claimant has the burden to prove entitlement to permanent total disability benefits. See McDevitt Street Bovis v. Rogers, 770 So.2d 180, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, Claimant must present evidence the JCC finds persuasive. It is well-settled that a JCC may reject in whole or in part even uncontroverted testimony the JCC disbelieves. See Bass v. Gen. Motors Corp., 637 So.2d 304, 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
However, a JCC may not accept only a portion of a physician's PIR rating, see Allen v. Protel, Inc., 852 So.2d 916, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), nor make medical findings which contradict undisputed medical testimony. See Urban v. Morris Drywall Spray Textures, 634 So.2d 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Here, the JCC made numerous findings of fact from the physicians' testimony. For instance, the JCC found Dr. Gonzalez testified Claimant had a 14% psychological PIR, all of which was attributable to the workplace accident. The JCC accepted Dr. Gonzalez' testimony and PIR. However, in her conclusions of law, she stated that "at least a portion" of Dr. Gonzalez' rating was attributable to complaints other than Claimant's workplace accident. Additionally, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg
...speculative or uncertain, it cannot be said that he sustained his burden of proof under Oswald and Hadley.See Mitchell v. XO Communications, 966 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (explaining that the claimant has the burden to prove entitlement to PTD benefits and, to do so, the claimant m......
-
O'Roake v. State
... ... Dist. Ct. App. 2018) ... (reversing and remanding order that contained internal ... inconsistency); Mitchell v. XO Commc'ns, 966 ... So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) ("Because the ... final order is inconsistent in its findings of ... ...
-
In re Doe
...its ruling, rather than on the minor who had the burden of persuasion below, contrary to our precedent. See Mitchell v. XO Communications, 966 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). There, we held that a decision in favor of the party without the burden of persuasion below (here, the parents) need ......
-
Beckett v. Department of Financial Services
... ... Fitzgerald v. Osceola County Sch. Bd., 974 So.2d 1161, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Mitchell v. XO Comm'ns, 966 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In any event, in this case, the Department did not rule that the ALJ's findings were not ... ...