Ryan's Family Steakhouse v. Whitlock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ryan's Family Steakhouse v. Whitlock

886 So. 2d 247, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15335, 2004 WL 2331090

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2004

DocketNo. 1D04-441

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 886 So. 2d 247 (Ryan's Family Steakhouse v. Whitlock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ryan's Family Steakhouse v. Whitlock, 886 So. 2d 247, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15335, 2004 WL 2331090 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [248]*248exclude 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.

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

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 [248]*248exclude 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 So. 2d 247, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15335, 2004 WL 2331090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryans-family-steakhouse-v-whitlock-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack