RYAN'S FAMILY STEAKHOUSE AND UNITED SELF INSURED SERVICES, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY WHITLOCK, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a workers' compensation judge's exclusion of employer/carrier's evidence (deposition transcripts) as an abuse of discretion where the only stated reason was docket management and the filings were only a few hours late.
Exclusion of a party's proffered evidence based solely on docket management concerns when filings were only inadvertently delayed a few hours constitutes an abuse of discretion.
[1] Exclusion of a party's evidence requires a showing of prejudice to the objecting party, such as surprise or unfair disadvantage; docket management concerns alone are insu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[T]he exclusion of an unlisted witness' testimony is a drastic remedy which should pertain in only the most compelling circumstances.”
Court cited Walters v. Keebler Co. to establish that exclusion of evidence is an extreme measure requiring compelling justification.
An employer/carrier appealed a workers' compensation judge's order finding compensability and awarding benefits to an employee. The judge excluded the…
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 Prejudice Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Employer/Carrier appeal an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims finding compensability and awarding medical and indemnity benefits based on the JCC’s exclusion of certain evidence.
Exclusion of evidence is generally within the province of the JCC. Nevertheless, to exclude a witness from testifying, prejudice must be shown to the objecting party, such as surprise or unfair disadvantage. Cedar Hammock Fire Dep’t v. Bonami, 672 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Here, the JCC did not allow E/C’s proffered exhibits of Dr. Munson’s deposition transcript and attachments as well as Claimant’s deposition. The E/C’s attorney was present at Dr. Munson’s deposition and at Claimant’s deposition. The prejudice articulated by the JCC was to control its docket orderly; yet according to the E/C, these filings were inadvertently filed a few hours late. This exclusion was an abuse of discretion. See e.g. Walters v. Keebler Co., 652 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(“[T]he exclusion of an unlisted witness’ testimony is a drastic remedy which should pertain in only the most compelling circumstances.”). We therefore reverse and remand for the JCC to consider the late-filed exhibits in making its determination.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur; ALLEN, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Walters v. Keebler Co. & Crawford & Co., 652 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Cedar Hammock Fire Dep't & Fla. League of Cities v. Bonami, 672 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)