Rinker Materials Corp. v. Hill, No. BC-469
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | ZEHMER; WENTWORTH; NIMMONS; NIMMONS |
| Citation | 471 So.2d 119,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1359 |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. BC-469 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1359 RINKER MATERIALS CORP. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Appellants, v. Dennis HILL, Appellee. |
Page 119
v.
Dennis HILL, Appellee.
First District.
H. Jack Miller, of Miller, Hodges & Kagin, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
Jerold Feuer, Miami, for appellee.
ZEHMER, Judge.
The employer and carrier appeal an order of the deputy commissioner awarding claimant an attorney's fee of $42,000. Finding no error in law or abuse of discretion, we affirm.
One of the three issues raised on appeal merits a short discussion. The employer and carrier complain that the testimony of claimant's economic expert regarding the value of future benefits awarded was not competent or probative because it was erroneously based on facts not supported by the record. The expert testified that the present value of the future psychiatric care awarded claimant is $353,442, based on $70 per session and two sessions per month for the remainder of claimant's life. The employer and carrier argue that there is no competent evidence in the record to support the expert's assumption that claimant will need psychiatric care for the remainder of his life.
We have reviewed the record and note that counsel for the employer and
Page 120
carrier did not contemporaneously object to the expert testimony on the ground that it was founded on facts not in the record. Without such contemporaneous objection before the deputy, there is no basis for reviewing such issue on appeal. Tabasky v. Dreyfuss, 350 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McAfoos, 303 So.2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Lineberger v. Domino Canning Co., 68 So.2d 357 (Fla.1953). All too often we find that attorneys in workers' compensation proceedings remain silent during the hearing before the deputy when incompetent evidence or opinion testimony is offered and received. Perhaps they do so expecting to argue lack of competent substantial evidence on appeal. But they should be aware of the old adage that hearsay received without objection becomes competent proof of the facts recited, and only by making a contemporaneous objection on proper grounds can the error be properly reviewed on appeal. The deputy and the opposing party are entitled to know what evidence is considered objectionable so that the objection can be addressed and perhaps obviated during the hearing.The dissent, going behind the failure of the employer and carrier to raise a proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., No. 1D00-3467.
...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) (rejecting an argument that testimony of an economic expert was not competent because it was based on factual assumption......
-
Foliage Design Systems, Inc. v. Fernandez, No. 90-3382
...denied, 475 So.2d 695 (Fla.1985); Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985); Rinker Materials Corp. v. Hill, 471 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); WFTL Broadcasting Co. v. Rowen, 480 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Coleman, 458 So.2d 1145......
-
Barr v. Pantry Pride, No. BQ-447
...we are equally as dismayed by the lack of any clear-cut objection made below by the E/C on this point. In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Hill, 471 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) we noted the All too often we find that attorneys in workers' compensation proceedings remain silent during the hearing......
-
Holiday Foliage v. Anderson, No. 93-1598
...any substantial support in the record. Chicken 'N' Things v. Murray, 329 So.2d 302, 306 (Fla.1976); Rinker Materials Corporation v. Hill, 471 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this vein, where the evidence is sufficient to support the JCC's interpretation of a physician's testimony, th......
-
Chavarria v. Selugal Clothing, Inc., No. 1D00-3467.
...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) (rejecting an argument that testimony of an economic expert was not competent because it was based on factual assumption......
-
Foliage Design Systems, Inc. v. Fernandez, No. 90-3382
...denied, 475 So.2d 695 (Fla.1985); Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985); Rinker Materials Corp. v. Hill, 471 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); WFTL Broadcasting Co. v. Rowen, 480 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Coleman, 458 So.2d 1145......
-
Barr v. Pantry Pride, No. BQ-447
...we are equally as dismayed by the lack of any clear-cut objection made below by the E/C on this point. In Rinker Materials Corp. v. Hill, 471 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) we noted the All too often we find that attorneys in workers' compensation proceedings remain silent during the hearing......
-
Holiday Foliage v. Anderson, No. 93-1598
...any substantial support in the record. Chicken 'N' Things v. Murray, 329 So.2d 302, 306 (Fla.1976); Rinker Materials Corporation v. Hill, 471 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this vein, where the evidence is sufficient to support the JCC's interpretation of a physician's testimony, th......