ALLIED BENDIX GALACTIC AND TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
YUSEF AL-HAFIZ, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an award of permanent total disability benefits to the claimant. The court rejected the employer/carrier's argument that the judge failed to adequately explain why he credited one vocational rehabilitation expert's testimony over others, holding that detailed explanations of expert testimony acceptance are not required unless essential medical evidence is rejected.
The court held that the judge was not required to explain why he accepted or rejected the testimony of vocational rehabilitation experts. While judges must make findings of ultimate material fact necessary to demonstrate the basis of their ruling, they need not explain their acceptance or rejection of testimony as long as there is no suggestion that contrary evidence was overlooked or ignored. The court declined to extend the rule requiring explanation of rejected essential medical testimony to circumstances involving other expert witnesses.
[1] A workers' compensation judge is required to make only those findings of ultimate material fact necessary to demonstrate the basis of the ruling, and need not explain pre…
[2] A workers' compensation order is not deficient for failing to expressly refer to the testimony of each expert witness when the order contains no suggestion that any evide…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the judge is required to make only those findings of ultimate material fact which are necessary to demonstrate the basis of the ruling, and need not explain precisely why testimony is accepted or rejected as long as it does not appear that contrary testimony was overlooked or ignored”
Establishes the standard for what findings a workers' compensation judge must include in an order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was awarded permanent total disability benefits in a workers' compensation case. The employer and workers' compensation carrier appealed,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflicting Medical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The employer/carrier appeal a workers’ compensation order by which the claimant was awarded permanent total disability benefits.
The record contains competent substantial evidence to support the award, and the employer/carrier’s assertions of error are without merit. Among other contentions, the employer/carrier argue that the order is deficient because the judge did not explain why he relied on the testimony of one of the vocational rehabilitation experts. But the judge is required to make only those findings of ultimate material fact which are necessary to demonstrate the basis of the ruling, and need not explain precisely why testimony is accepted or rejected as long as it does not appear that contrary testimony was overlooked or ignored. See e.g., Buro v. Dino's Southland Meats, 354 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1978); Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 386 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Although the judge did not expressly refer to the testimony presented by each of the other vocational rehabilitation witnesses, the appealed order contains no suggestion that any of the evidence was overlooked or ignored.
Nevertheless, the employer/carrier rely on cases such as Rouse v. Wyldwood Tropical Nursery, 392 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), in which this court indicated that it may sometimes be necessary for the judge to explain why essential medical testimony is rejected if the reason is not apparent from the record. Subsequent decisions appear to have entrenched the applicability of this rule with regard to conflicting medical opinions. See e.g., Yeargin Const. Co. v. Hutchinson, 547 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
However, there are many instances in which the testimony of a medical doctor is essential to a claim, whereas the testimony of other experts and ordinary witnesses is not of the same character. We therefore decline to extend the stated rule to the circumstances of this case. While a more detailed order might have been helpful, unlike Rouse this case does not involve such a lack of reasoning as to impede review when the order is measured against the record facts.
The appealed order is affirmed.
BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jefferson Stores, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, 386 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Buro v. Ding's Southland Meats, 354 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1978)
- Williams v. State, 547 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Rouse v. Wyldwood Tropical Nursery & Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)