Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Where a Florida expert medical advisor (EMA) wavered slightly in answering a hypothetical question offered to the doctor on cross-examination, but clearly indicated in the EMA’s report that the injured worker had reached MMI, it was error for the Judge of Compensation Claims to disregard the EMA’s opinion on the basis that the EMA had been equivocal, held a state appellate court. The court acknowledged earlier precedent that held the presumption of correctness afforded to the EMA’s opinion did not apply if the opinion had been “equivocal,” but the court added that where, as here, there was no equivocation in the opinion itself, the JCC was required to make a finding that clear and convincing evidence existed to contradict the EMA. None existed in the instant case.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Olvera v. Hernandez Constr. of SW Fla. Inc., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 17205 (Nov. 15, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.06.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.