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.
A decision by a judge of compensation claims to exclude the deposition of a home health care nurse, based on the fact that the claimant’s attorney “was not aware” that the employer planned to offer it into evidence was improper, even considering the broad latitude given the JCC in such instances, held a Florida appellate court. The issue to be determined related to whether claimant’s wife should be paid for attendant care services provided to claimant. Claimant’s attorney had been present for the deposition and had a copy. The court indicated that in a workers’ compensation proceeding, in the absence of other compelling circumstances, late disclosure that did not result in actual prejudice would not ordinarily warrant the exclusion of evidence. The error required reversal as the evidence could have affected the award of benefits to the claimant.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is a leading commentator and expert on the law of workers’ compensation.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See American Airlines v. Hennessey, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2454 (Feb. 23, 2015) [2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2454 (Feb. 23, 2015)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 124.01 [124.01]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site