Workers’ compensation — Evidence — Expert medical advisor — Presumption of correctness — Constitutionality — Section 440.13(9)(c), which provides a presumption of correctness to EMA opinions, is not unconstitutional — Separation of powers — EMA presumption does not unconstitutionally infringe on the powers of the supreme court where there exists no statutory or constitutional grant of rulemaking authority to the supreme court in workers’ compensation proceedings — Enactment of EMA presumption does not interfere with executive branch’s ability to fairly adjudicate workers’ compensation claims because it falls within the purview of the legislature regarding evidentiary issues in workers’ compensation cases — Due process — Court rejects due process argument that requiring claimant to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption creates an insurmountable task in light of restrictions on admissible testimony in workers’ compensation cases — EMA presumption is not irrebuttable and is permitted elsewhere in the law in civil and criminal contexts, as well as throughout Chapter 440 — Furthermore, heightened burden of persuasion does not completely deny the right to present evidence because it still permits notice and opportunity to be heard — Because claimant in this case was able to present evidence in the form of her independent medical examination, no due process violation occurred — Equal protection — Statute applies equally to claimants and employer/carriers alike, and claimant has failed to pinpoint a classification created by the presumption which runs afoul of equal protection — Judge of compensation claims acted within her discretion in denying claimant’s surgery based on presumption of correctness of EMA opinion as JCC found no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary
44 Fla. L. Weekly D1548c
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.