Collins v. Catalytic, Inc.

While ascribing to the rule that a judge of compensation claims (JCC) has the discretionary right to accept the testimony of one physician over that of another, I consider it necessary to point out that this rule should be tempered by the recognition that the exercise of such discretion must be “solidly rooted in a firm foundation of fact to support the opinion of the expert upon whom the Deputy chooses to rely.” Geiger Distribs., Inc. v. Snow, 186 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1966) (emphasis added). Moreover, when, as here, the JCC’s findings on permanency vel non depend entirely on medical evidence…