Opinion
Case No. 1D99-1870.
Opinion filed October 17, 2000.
An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims; Stephen J. Johnson, Judge.
Phillip D. Blackmon and Cindy J. Mishcon of Pyszka, Blackmon, Levy Savola, P.A., Miami Lakes, for Appellants.
Daniel P. Faherty and Charles W. Smith of Cianfrogna, Telfer, Reda, Faherty Anderson, P.A., Cocoa, for Appellee.
The employer/carrier appeal a workers' compensation order awarding medical and indemnity benefits where the JCC rejected the expert medical advisor's opinion in favor of the initial treating neurologist's opinion to find that claimant had a greater than 20% impairment rating and was, therefore, entitled to supplemental benefits. Because we find that the record as a whole provides competent and substantial evidence to support the JCC's finding of clear and convincing evidence to reject the opinion of the expert medical advisor, we affirm. As reiterated in Jacaranda Manor v. Randolph, 755 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), a JCC's determination, 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, will not be disturbed on appeal as long as it is predicated on competent substantial record evidence which the JCC could find to be clear and convincing.
We affirm the remainder of JCC's order without discussion.
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR. JOANOS, J. DISSENTS WITH WRITTEN OPINION.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
I dissent. There is a statutory presumption of correctness with regard to an expert medical advisor's opinion that must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Jacaranda Manor v. Randolph, 755 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000);Pierre v. Handi Van, Inc., 717 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). "[T]his 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."Jacaranda, 755 So.2d at 782. See also, Walgreen Company v. Carver, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2099]. In my view, the record does not contain competent substantial evidence to support the JCC's ruling rejecting the EMA's opinion in this case.