Case Name: GAINESVILLE COCA-COLA and General Adjustment Bureau, Appellants, v. Edward E. YOUNG, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-12-10
Citations: 632 So. 2d 83
Docket Number: No. 92-2646
Parties: GAINESVILLE COCA-COLA and General Adjustment Bureau, Appellants, v. Edward E. YOUNG, Appellee.
Judges: BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 632
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
GAINESVILLE COCA-COLA and General Adjustment Bureau, Appellants, v. Edward E. YOUNG, Appellee.
No. 92-2646.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 10, 1993.
Opinion Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Feb. 16, 1994.
Valerie A. Marshall, Jeffery & Marshall, P.A., Maitland, for appellants.
Gary L. Fernandes, Sr., Davis & Fer-nandes, Sr., Gainesville, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The employer/carrier appeal from a workers' compensation order awarding wage loss benefits and reimbursement of retraining expenses with interest. They contend that the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) abused his discretion in accepting the 1% impairment rating of the physician who performed the independent medical evaluation (IME) over the 0% impairment rating of the treating physicians. We agree and reverse the order.
This court has previously reversed this case and remanded it for the JCC to state its reasons for selecting the IME doctor over the treating physicians because the reasons were not apparent from the record. Gainesville Coca-Cola v. Young, 596 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). None of the reasons stated by the JCC on remand was supported by competent substantial evidence. See Curry v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd., 522 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (JCC's discretion is not unbridled; JCC must give adequate reasons for accepting the testimony of one physician over another where the reason is not apparent from the record or it appears that the JCC has overlooked or ignored evidence). In the absence of competent sub stantial evidence supporting the JCC's acceptance of the IME doctor's impairment rating over that of claimant's treating physicians and the absence of any evidence of permanent impairment, we must REVERSE the JCC's order.
BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur.