it did not provide a basis for disturbing the ALJ’s decision. Further, the letter did not controvert the substantial evidence on which the ALJ relied because it showed only that Werner was entitled to second priority in receiving vocational rehabilitation services due to the fact that the agency classified him as “significantly disabled.” Werner failed to submit any evidence of what the term, “significantly disabled,” meant when used by the Florida DVR. Nor did he present any evidence that the term was inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding that Werner had impairments that prevented him from performing his past work, but which did not prevent him from performing light or sedentary work — the relevant criteria for the ALJ’s decision. But cf. Falcon v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 827 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Nor does Werner cite any authority on appeal
holding that when an accident occurs outside florida workers compensation benefits are payable only if the contract of employment was made in florida or if the employees employment is principally located in florida holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding holding that similarity between florida workers compensation disability law and social security disability law require that the alj give great weight to the florida determination holding that the workers compensation offset includes total social security disability benefits received by claimant and his dependents holding parent entitled to credit for any social security disability benefits paid to child as a result of parents disability