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

February 2, 2018 by admin

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Damages — Evidence of medical treatment insured might possibly need in the future was insufficient to sustain award of damages for future medical expenses — Award of damages for future medical expenses is limited to expenses reasonably certain to be incurred — Remand for trial court to either grant insurer’s motion for remittitur or conduct new trial limited to determination of future medical expenses

43 Fla. L. Weekly
D238a

Top of Form
Insurance
— Uninsured motorist — Damages — Evidence of medical treatment insured might
possibly need in the future was insufficient to sustain award of damages for
future medical expenses — Award of damages for future medical expenses is
limited to expenses reasonably certain to be incurred — Remand for trial court
to either grant insurer’s motion for remittitur or conduct new trial limited to
determination of future medical expenses

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v. BRENDA HARMON, Appellee. 5th District. Case Nos. 5D16-2948, 5D17-209.
Opinion filed January 26, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam
County, Scott C. Dupont, Judge. Counsel: Rhonda B. Boggess, and Gina P.
Grimsley, of Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Leslie
H. Morton, Robert L. McLeod, II, and Seth B. Dempsey, of The Mcleod Firm, St.
Augustine, for Appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
appeals the final judgment and the trial court’s order denying its motion for
new trial and remittitur. We affirm as to all issues except for the trial
court’s failure either to grant the remittitur or to order a limited new trial
because there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict awarding
future medical expenses in the amount of $100,000. For the reasons set forth
below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Brenda Harmon sued State Farm, her insurer, seeking
underinsured motorist benefits following her collision with an underinsured
driver. While the negligence of the adverse driver was admitted, State Farm
contested injury causation and related damages. The jury awarded Ms. Harmon
$685,800, which included $158,000 for past medical expenses and $100,000 for
future medical expenses.
State Farm challenges rulings made during trial regarding
whether the scope of one expert’s testimony was properly disclosed prior to
trial, whether a treating physician could testify regarding why he referred Ms.
Harmon to a neurosurgeon, and whether comments Ms. Harmon’s counsel made during
closing argument were unfairly prejudicial. The standard of review is abuse of
discretion for each of these issues. See Binger v. King Pest Control,
401 So. 2d 1310, 1313-14 (Fla. 1981) (explaining the standard of review for
expert witness disclosure); City of Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So. 3d 1064,
1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (explaining the standard of review for improper
closing argument); Crowe v. Lowe, 942 So. 2d 903, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006) (explaining the standard of review for admissibility of evidence). Under
the specific facts of this case, we find no abuse of discretion as to any of
those issues, and we affirm without further discussion.
However, we find that the trial court erred by denying State
Farm’s motion for new trial or for remittitur regarding the jury’s award of
$100,000 for future medical expenses. Ms. Harmon presented the testimony of her
treating physician, Dr. Collier, to lay a foundation for an award of future
medical expenses. Dr. Collier testified that Ms. Harmon would need certain care
in the future, such as routine follow-up visits with her doctors on a schedule
approximating the one she followed post-accident. Dr. Collier agreed with Ms.
Harmon’s counsel that his prior billing could reflect the cost of those
probable future visits. Additionally, Dr. Collier testified that Ms. Harmon may
need different modalities of treatment in the future that might include trigger
point injections, which might possibly be of benefit along with other
treatments that might be indicated in the future. Again, Dr. Collier
agreed with Ms. Harmon’s counsel that a review of his past medical bills,
totaling $35,947, could define the costs of those possible treatments that may
occur in the future.
Because “Florida law restricts recovery of future medical
expenses to those expenses ‘reasonably certain’ to be incurred,” there was no
evidentiary basis for those potential future medical expenses. Volusia Cty.
v. Joynt
, 179 So. 3d 448, 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). “Testimony or evidence
that certain treatments might possibly be obtained in the future cannot
merit an award of future medical expenses.” Gen. Emps. Ins. Co. v. Isaacs,
206 So. 3d 62, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The trial court also erred in allowing
the award for future care, other than routine follow-up visits, because Dr.
Collier offered no specific or general dollar amount and provided no reliable
means by which the jury could calculate the cost of that potential additional
future medical care. “[T]here must be an evidentiary basis upon which the jury
can, with reasonable certainty, determine the amount of those expenses.” Volusia
Cty.
, 179 So. 3d at 452. Without any testimony regarding the frequency or
specific type of treatments beyond routine follow-up visits, the jury had no
basis for reaching the dollar amount that it did. See DeAlmeida v. Graham,
524 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review denied, Reid v.
Graham
, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1987) (holding that past medical expenses
alone do not provide a reasonable basis for jury to draw inferences from to
compute the cost of future medical care).
While there was evidence that Ms. Harmon would probably need
future care, specifically routine follow-up office visits, we find that there
was no competent substantial evidence to support an award of $100,000 for
future medical expenses. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the final
judgment and remand for the trial court either to grant State Farm’s motion for
remittitur or to conduct a new trial limited to a determination of future
medical expenses.
We reverse the cost judgment entered below based upon the
specific stipulation of the parties that the cost judgment should be reversed
unless the judgment was affirmed in its entirety. Accordingly, the trial court
may entertain argument and evidence, if necessary, to reconsider the judgment taxing
costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS. COST JUDGMENT REVERSED. (SAWAYA, ORFINGER, and EDWARDS, JJ.,
concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • 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