White v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, Lp

• Citation: 16 So.3d 992
• Decision Date: 26 August 2009
• Docket Number: No. 1D08-1367.,1D08-1367.
• Parties: Debra WHITE, Appellant, v. BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, LP, and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

16 So.3d 992

Debra WHITE, Appellant, v. BASS PRO OUTDOOR WORLD, LP, and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 1D08-1367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 26, 2009.

A. Scott Gow and Brooke Perez of Law Offices of Steven Slootsky, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Lourdes Ferrer of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellees.

HAWKES, C.J.

Claimant seeks reversal of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) arguing the JCC abused her discretion by rejecting the opinion of an authorized orthopedist. We disagree, and affirm.

In this case, two differing medical opinions were submitted to the JCC regarding the major contributing cause (MCC) of Claimant's knee injury. Claimant's treating orthopedist opined the MCC of Claimant's knee injury was her workplace accident. The employer/carrier (E/C) obtained an independent medical examiner (IME) who originally agreed with Claimant's orthopedist, but changed his opinion after reviewing medical records that clearly demonstrated a prior problem with the knee. Because the records were inconsistent with the history Claimant provided, the IME ultimately opined the evidence was too inconclusive for him to render an opinion on MCC within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

The JCC rejected the opinion of Claimant's treating physician, as was her prerogative, see City of West Palm Beach Fire Department v. Norman, 711 So.2d 628, 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and denied compensability of the knee condition. Claimant contends, however, the reasons provided by the JCC for rejecting the "uncontroverted" medical opinion of the treating physician were unreasonable and, thus, impermissible.

We note that a JCC may reject evidence, even uncontroverted testimony, which he does not believe. See Ullman v City of Tampa Parks Dep't, 625 So.2d 868, 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (en banc). Nevertheless, here, we disagree with Claimant's premise that the opinion of the treating physician was uncontroverted. Although the E/C's IME did not contradict the treating physician's opinion to the extent that a more preponderant cause of Claimant's knee injury was identified, the IME's opinion did establish a medical foundation for questioning the medical validity or weight of the treating doctor's opinion.

Here, the JCC, after reviewing the entirety of the evidence, was simply not persuaded that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the MCC of Claimant's knee injury was the workplace accident. This finding is supported by record...