From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manor v. Randolph

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 12, 2000
755 So. 2d 781 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 1D99-1232.

Opinion filed April 12, 2000.

An appeal from Order of the Judge of Compensation Claims, Lauren Hafner, Judge.

Jack A. Weiss and Mitchell R. Golden of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal Banker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellants.

Robert W. Schoenfelder, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.


The appellants challenge a workers' compensation order by which the judge rejected an expert medical advisor's opinion and instead accepted the opinions of two treating doctors, based in part on their greater expertise and familiarity with the claimant's condition. We conclude that it was thereby permissible for the judge to determine that the statutory presumption of correctness with regard to the expert medical advisor's opinion was overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, as specified in section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes. As inMcKesson Drug Co. v. Williams, 706 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), this determination will not be disturbed on appeal insofar as it is predicated on competent substantial record evidence which the judge could reasonably find to be clear and convincing. The appealed order is therefore affirmed.

ERVIN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Manor v. Randolph

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 12, 2000
755 So. 2d 781 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Manor v. Randolph

Case Details

Full title:JACARANDA MANOR and CRAWFORD COMPANY, Appellants, v. MARY RANDOLPH…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Apr 12, 2000

Citations

755 So. 2d 781 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Punsky v. Clay Cty. Sheriff's Off.

In the present case, the judge of compensation claims, explicitly applying a "clear and convincing" standard,…