Workers’ compensation — Evidence — Action involving employer/carrier’s attempt to proffer surveillance video of claimant taken the week before final hearing, on the morning of final hearing — Judge of compensation claims did not err in denying motions to admit surveillance evidence or grant continuance of final hearing where undisputed facts constituted competent substantial evidence to support JCC’s finding that claimant was prejudiced by surprise and that prejudice was incurable; even though there is no allegation that e/c acted in bad faith, primary inquiry is whether there was prejudice to objecting party; and record supports JCC’s finding that to grant e/c’s motions would work against efficiency — No abuse of discretion in denying motion to amend pretrial stipulation, filed morning of final hearing, which sought to add misrepresentation defense and “clarify” witness and exhibit lists to include surveillance evidence — Motion was not a mere clarification because original pretrial stipulation listed only “surveillance rep, if any” in contravention of instructions to list the specific and full names of all witnesses as well as to specify live or by deposition — Lateness of motion to add misrepresentation defense was not excusable — E/c’s decision to change litigation strategy does not justify amending pretrial stipulation — JCC did not reversibly err in failing to allow e/c to call surveillance representatives live as rebuttal or impeachment witnesses to claimant’s testimony that she experienced pain if her hand was touched — Claimant herself admitted under oath that her hand was manicured, e/c did not allege that surveillance established the fact of the manicure, and surveillance could not give direct evidence that manicure was not subjectively painful — Court rejects argument that JCC erred as a matter of law by awarding water therapy for six months under doctor’s prescription because prescription was never authenticated — Prescription was expressly received into evidence as an attachment to petition for benefits without any qualification, and another doctor, who prescribed only six weeks of water therapy, testified both that he agreed with six-month prescription and his six-week prescription was artificially limited by his program for electronic record keeping — No error in awarding psychiatric treatment because JCC’s findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence which satisfied objective medical findings requirement in section 440.09(1)
45 Fla. L. Weekly D111c
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.
Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index