Florida Mining & Materials v. Mobley

1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 996 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 9, 1995

Full text

649 So.2d 934 (1995) FLORIDA MINING & MATERIALS, Appellant, v. Michael MOBLEY, Appellee. No. 94-2114. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. February 9, 1995. William E. Curphey, Mary Ann Stiles and Debra M. Metzler of Stiles, Taylor & Metzler, P.A., Tampa, for appellant. Lawrence H. Samaha, Tampa, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The employer appeals a workers' compensation order, asking this court to undertake an independent review of medical evidence presented by deposition. The appellate court is not disadvantaged in assessing the probative value of depositions, as opposed to live testimony. Sabre Marine v. Feliciano, 461 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Kelly v. Florida Atlantic Univ., 413 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). But the case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary. Swanigan v. Dobbs House, 442 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Gomez v. Jack Steinberg Neckwear, 424 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also GTE v. Miller, 642 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The resolution of such conflicts is within the fact-finding authority of the judge of compensation claims. Jefferson Stores v. Rosenfeld, 386 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Because the challenged ruling in the present case is supported by competent substantial evidence, the order is affirmed. BARFIELD, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Parentheticals

“[A] ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”
European Marble Co. v. Robinson
"case[s] may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent, substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary."
Lahodik v. Lahodik
“[C]ase[s] may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent, substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”
Griffin Industries, LLC v. Dixie Southland Corporation
“case[s] may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary”
Service Management Systems v. Hood
“[C]ase[s] may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”
5350 Park, LLC, etc. v. Grycon, LLC, etc.
”[T]he case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”
Karma Thornton and Connie Thornton v. American Family Life Assurance Company etc.
“But the case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”
Luis Duran v. Rommy Duran
“But the case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”
Andre P. Malek v. Marie Malek
“But the case may not be retried on appeal, and a ruling which is supported by competent substantial evidence will be upheld even though there may be some persuasive evidence to the contrary.”
Leslie G. Greenwood v. Drew A. Greenwood