ADRIA PERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG/CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG WORKERS' COMPENSATION OFFICE, APPELLEES
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 case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Judge of Compensation Claims' denial of the claimant's request for medical treatment, holding that the judge erred by failing to apply the Daubert test under amended section 90.702 to evaluate the admissibility of the employer's independent medical examiner's expert opinion.
Yes. The JCC erred in not applying the Daubert test analysis to Dr. Maniscalco's expert opinion. The 2013 amendments to section 90.702 adopting the Daubert test must be applied in workers' compensation proceedings to determine admissibility of expert opinions.
[1] The Florida Evidence Code applies to workers' compensation proceedings.
[2] Amendments to section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code, adopting the Daubert test for expert witness testimony, apply to workers' compensation proceedings.
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“This Court long ago determined that the evidence code applies to workers' compensation proceedings.”
Establishes that Florida Evidence Code, including the Daubert test, applies to workers' compensation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaimant Adria Perry requested medical treatment in a workers' compensation proceeding. The Employer provided an independent medical examination by Dr…
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 Daubert Standard For Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant argues the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) erred in denying her request for medical treatment. Even though Claimant argues the JCC erred on multiple counts, we address only the overarching argument that the JCC erred in determining he was not required to address Claimant’s challenge, based on section 90.702, Florida Statutes, as amended July 1, 2013, regarding the admissibility of the expert opinion of the Employer’s independent medical examiner, Dr. Maniscalco. We agree the JCC erred in not applying such an analysis to Dr. Maniscalco’s expert opinion. Accordingly, we reverse the appealed order.
This Court long ago determined that the evidence code applies to workers’ compensation proceedings. See, e.g., Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Mem’l Hosp., 621 So.2d 1380, 1382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Henson, 823 So.2d 104, 107 (Fla.2002) (“First, the Florida Evidence Code applies in workers’ compensation proceedings.”) (citing Alford, 621 So.2d at 1382). Effective July 1, 2013, the Legislature amended section 90.702 of the evidence code and adopted the admissibility test first described in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), commonly referred to as the Daubert test. Accordingly, we held in Giaimo v. Florida Autosport, Inc., 154 So.3d 385, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), that the 2013 modifications to section 90.702 must be applied to ascertain the admissibility of a treating neurosurgeon’s expert opinion on apportionment. We note that even though the JCC did not have the benefit of this Court’s opinion in Giaimo when he rendered his order under review, we nevertheless reverse the appealed order and remand with directions that the JCC apply the Daubert test, as codified in the Florida Evidence Code, to determine whether Dr. Maniscalco’s expert opinion is admissible. In doing so, we also direct the JCC to our recent opinion in Booker v. Sumter County Sheriffs Office, 166 So.3d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), in which we address the steps necessary for application of the Daubert test, beginning with timeliness and sufficiency of the motion.
REVERSED.
ROWE, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baan v. Columbia Cnty., 180 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…rgued that the Frye test applied here. And even if they had, our court’s decisions have correctly required the 2013 modifications to § 90.702 to be applied to ascertain the admissibility of expert opinion. See, e.g., Perry v. City of St. Petersburg, 171 So. 3d 224, 225 (Fla.. 1st DCA 2015) (remanding with directions to apply the Daubert test as codified in. the Florida Evidence Code).…
-
Cristin v. Everglades Corr. Inst. & Div. of Risk Mgmt., 310 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…o v. Florida Autosport, Inc., 154 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Furthermore, a JCC is required to apply the Daubert test, as codified in section 90.702, to a challenge to the admissibility of an expert opinion. See Perry v. City of St. Petersburg, 171 So. 3d 224, 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding JCC erred in determining that he was not required to apply analysis under § 90.702 to doctor’s expert opinion and directing JCC to follow Booker on remand). As this Court explained in Booker, When engaging in a Dau…
Authorities Cited
- Daubert et ux. v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993)
- United States Sugar Corp. v. G.J. Henson, 823 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2002)
- Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Mem'l Hosp. & State of Florida/Division of Risk Mgmt., 621 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Booker v. Sumter Cnty. Sheriff's Office/North Am. Risk Servs., 166 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Giaimo v. Fla. Autosport, Inc., 154 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Wright v. State, 166 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)