Burgess v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burgess v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

650 So. 2d 687, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1567, 1995 WL 63080

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 17, 1995·No. No. 94-1837·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Acting pro se, William J. Burgess, Jr. appeals the final order denying his request for amendment or expungement of abuse report No. 92-118528. Burgess argues that the hearing officer should not have considered Dr. Jordan’s psychological report because it is an inaccurate evaluation of Burgess. We affirm because Dr. Jordan’s expert testimony was admissible under section 90.702, Florida Statutes (1993). Although Burgess attempted to present his expert’s counter evidence to the agency, this action came too late as this evidence should have been tendered to the hearing officer. See Goss v. District School Bd. of St. Johns County, 601 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (stating that it is the hearing officer’s role to accept or reject evidence and to judge the credibility of witness testimony). Where, as here, there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s findings, those findings will not be disturbed on appeal. See Maynard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 609 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Florida Sugar Cane League v. State, 580 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Acting pro se, William J. Burgess, Jr. appeals the final order denying his request for amendment or expungement of abuse report No. 92-118528. Burgess argues that the hearing officer should not have considered Dr. Jordan’s psychological report because it is an inaccurate evaluation of Burgess. We affirm because Dr. Jordan’s expert testimony was admissible under section 90.702, Florida Statutes (1993). Although Burgess attempted to present his expert’s counter evidence to the agency, this action came too late as this evidence should have been tendered to the hearing officer. See Goss v. District School Bd. of St. Johns County, 601 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (stating that it is the hearing officer’s role to accept or reject evidence and to judge the credibility of witness testimony). Where, as here, there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s findings, those findings will not be disturbed on appeal. See Maynard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 609 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Florida Sugar Cane League v. State, 580 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Burgess v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 650 So. 2d 687, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1567, 1995 WL 63080 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

650 So. 2d 687 (Burgess v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related