Summary
In Barnett v. Lakeland Construction Co., 417 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), a case with facts similar to those in this instance, the court held that the deputy commissioner did not err in refusing to apply the "logical cause doctrine" when the deputy commissioner had the direct opportunity to observe the behavior and demeanor of the claimant and his witnesses, even though the employer presented no evidence to refute the claimant's assertions.
Summary of this case from BAHR v. HOWARD JOHNSONOpinion
No. AD-435.
August 6, 1982.
Appeal from the Deputy Commissioner.
Mark P. Kelly of Freeman Lopez, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Susan R. Whaley of MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison Kelly, Tallahassee, and W. James Kelly, Lakeland, for appellee.
Barnett appeals a deputy commissioner's order denying workers' compensation. We affirm.
Barnett presented evidence of a compensable accident at the hearing. However, due to various inconsistencies, the deputy commissioner refused to believe the evidence and denied compensation.
Barnett contends that the deputy commissioner erred in refusing to apply the "logical cause" doctrine because the employer/carrier presented no contradictory evidence. He also contends that the deputy commissioner was not free to disbelieve the evidence in the absence of other evidence tending to show that the injury could have been attributable to an event which occurred on an earlier date. Tatum v. Leon Moss Dairy, 339 So.2d 639 (Fla. 1976). We disagree. Tatum does not require such a showing; rather, Tatum simply addressed itself to a situation where such evidence was present.
As the deputy commissioner had the opportunity to observe the behavior and demeanor of Barnett and his witnesses, he is in a better position to judge their credibility. This court will not reweigh the evidence.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.