Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 9, 2016 by admin

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Damages — Award of damages for future medical expenses was excessive, and court should have granted motion for remittitur

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2715a
Top of Form

Insurance
— Uninsured motorist — Damages — Award of damages for future medical
expenses was excessive, and court should have granted motion for remittitur —
Because treating physician testified as to insured’s yearly cost of future
medical expenses, but there was no testimony regarding insured’s life
expectancy, case is remanded for new trial solely on issue of insured’s life
expectancy

GENERAL
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a GEICO, Appellant, v. LAURI ISAACS, Appellee.
4th District. Case No. 4D15-2263. December 7, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol-Lisa
Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 10-21549-18. Counsel: Sharon C. Degnan of
Kubicki Draper, Orlando, for appellant. Kenneth D. Cooper, Fort Lauderdale, for
appellee.

(KLINGENSMITH,
J.) Lauri Isaacs suffered injuries due to a car accident. She filed suit
against GEICO, her uninsured motorist carrier, seeking compensation for past
and future medical expenses as well as pain and suffering. At trial, Isaacs was
awarded a total of $750,000 for medical expenses and pain and suffering. After
a reduction of $60,000 in collateral source setoffs, judgment was entered for
$690,000. This amount included an award for future medical expenses of
$360,000. GEICO moved post-trial for remittitur and for a new trial, arguing
the jury’s award for future medical expenses was excessive and belied by the
manifest weight of the evidence. Based on our review of the record, the motion
for remittitur as to the award for future medical expenses should have been
granted.

“The
standard of review for an order denying a motion for new trial or denying a
remittitur is abuse of discretion.” Whitney v. Milien, 125 So. 3d 817,
819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). While most personal injury verdicts involve an element
of speculation subject to jury discretion, a court may review their discretion
and reduce the award if “shown to be clearly arbitrary.” Arnold v. Sec.
Nat’l Ins. Co.
, 174 So. 3d 1082, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Sproule
v. Nelson
, 81 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla. 1955)). In that regard, “[a] court
cannot allow a jury to award a greater amount of damages than what is
reasonably supported by the evidence at trial.” Festival Fun Parks, LLC v.
Bellamy
, 123 So. 3d 684, 685-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Truelove v.
Blount
, 954 So. 2d 1284, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)).

“[O]nly
medical expenses that are reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are
recoverable.” Vazquez v. Martinez, 175 So. 3d 372, 374 (Fla. 5th DCA
2015); accord GEICO Indem. Co. v. DeGrandchamp, 102 So. 3d 685, 686
(Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Further, “[t]here must also be an evidentiary basis upon
which the jury can, with reasonable certainty, determine the amount of those
expenses.” Vazquez, 175 So. 3d at 374; see also GEICO, 102 So. 3d
at 686 (holding that “[w]hile DeGrandechamp [sic] established that she was
reasonably certain to incur at least some medical expenses in the future, we
can find no evidentiary basis to support the amount of the jury’s award in this
case”). Testimony or evidence that certain treatments might possibly be
obtained in the future cannot merit an award of future medical expenses. Vazquez,
175 So. 3d at 374 (citing Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So. 3d 805, 812 (Fla.
3d DCA 2010); Truelove, 954 So. 2d at 1288).

At
trial, one of Isaacs’ treating physicians opined that she would incur up to
$2,000 in future medical expenses per year, and also recommended that she
undergo shoulder surgery that he estimated would cost $40,000-$50,000. This was
the only competent, substantial evidence presented on which the award for
future medical expenses could be based. However, as to his opinion regarding
the future annual medical expenses, no testimony about life expectancy was
presented to the jury.

Due
to the lack of evidence relating to Isaacs’ life expectancy, in addition to the
fact that the amount awarded for future medical expenses far exceeded what the
evidence supported, we remand this case to the trial court for a new trial
solely on the issue of Isaacs’ life expectancy relating to the $2,000 per year
for future medical expenses. We therefore affirm only the portions of the final
award for future medical expenses covering $50,000 for the appellee’s future
shoulder surgery, and her projected annual expenses of $2,000 (with the
ultimate total of those annual expenses subject to the trial court’s
life-expectancy findings on remand). We affirm all other amounts of the final
award, and on all other issues raised on appeal.

Affirmed
in part, Reversed in part and Remanded with instructions.
(TAYLOR
and FORST, JJ., concur.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982