47 Fla. L. Weekly D692b RED DIAMOND MEDICAL GROUP, LLC a/a/o Barbara Sori, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-763. L.T. Case No. 20-3172 SP. March 23, 2022. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge. Counsel: Chad Barr Law, and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte Springs), […]
Articles
Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Special damages — Aggravation of preexisting condition — Trial court erred by permitting plaintiff to present unpled claim of aggravation damages to jury based on the fact that defendant engaged in discovery regarding plaintiff’s prior injuries and treatment — Because aggravation of preexisting conditions does not necessarily result from automobile accidents, even though it might naturally and proximately result from the injury, it is a claim for special damages which must be specifically pled — Knowledge by the defense of the claimed damages is insufficient to excuse pleading requirement — Where special damages were not specifically pled, evidence of them was inadmissible — Argument that issue was tried by consent is unsupported where defendant made repeated objections aimed at excluding aggravation of preexisting conditions from trial — Case remanded for new trial limited to the cause and amount of future medical expenses, if any, and the cause and amount of future non-economic damages — On remand, trial court is instructed to grant defendant’s motion for directed verdict on claim for damages regarding aggravation of preexisting conditions where there was absolutely no evidence presented by either side to the effect that the collision aggravated any prior condition, disease or injury
47 Fla. L. Weekly D715a STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CHRISTEL DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF C.H., A CHILD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 5th District. Case Nos. 5D20-1595, 5D20-1601. L.T. Case No. 2018-CA-00631. Opinion filed March 25, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Carol A. Falvey, Judge. Counsel: Jennifer […]
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Medical expenses — Statutory fee schedules — Deductible — Trial court properly determined that insurer was required to subtract deductible from provider’s total medical charges before applying reimbursement limitations — Error to require insurer to pay 100% of billed amount where billed amount was more than 80% of 200% of applicable fee schedule — Argument that insured failed to comply with conditions precedent was not preserved for appellate review
47 Fla. L. Weekly D713e GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. AFFINITY HEALTHCARE CENTER AT WATERFORD LAKES, PL A/A/O ERNST PEREIRA, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D21-184. L.T. Case No. 2017-SC-12824-O. March 25, 2022. Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, David Johnson, Judge. Counsel: Rebecca Delaney and Scott W. Dutton, of Dutton Law Group, […]
Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Hypertension — Presumption of compensability — Law enforcement officers — Judge of compensation claims did not err in finding that the compensability presumption from section 112.18 did not apply to claimant based on expert medical advisor’s opinion that claimant’s pre-employment physical revealed evidence of hypertension — EMA supplied sufficient grounds for JCC’s determination — Court rejects argument that only a “diagnosis” of hypertension at time of pre-employment physical examination can be credited by a JCC to negate compensability presumption — No error in overruling claimant’s Daubert objection to EMA’s testimony on grounds of being based upon speculative or incorrect assumptions
47 Fla. L. Weekly D662f PHILLIP LAKIN, Appellant, v. HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/FLORIDA SHERIFFS RISK MANAGEMENT FUND, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-689. March 16, 2022. On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Mark A. Massey, Judge. Date of Accident: December 9, 2019. Counsel: Kimberly A. Hill from […]
Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Going and coming rule — Vehicles — Exclusive personal use — Air conditioning service technician injured while traveling from his final service call location in a company vehicle after informing supervisor that he had finished work for the day — Judge of compensation claims erred by determining that section 440.092(2) didn’t apply because, while claimant had exclusive personal use of vehicle to travel to and from work, he did not have unrestricted freedom to use vehicle outside of travel to and from work — “Exclusive personal” use means that an injury is not compensable where the employee’s transportation is available exclusively to that employee and that the employee can use the transportation as if it were personal property for the purpose of going to and coming from work — Discussion of the traveling employee provision in section 440.092(4), the going-and-coming provision in section 440.092(2), and the relationship between the two — Claimant’s injury was not compensable because he was not in travel status at time of the injury and the going-and-coming provision did apply
47 Fla. L. Weekly D668d KELLY AIR SYSTEMS, LLC, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA OF FLORIDA, and TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants, v. DORINDA KOHLUN, as claimant for Aaron Kohlun, Injured Employee, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-0976. March 16, 2022. On appeal from the Judges of Compensation Claims. Frank J. Clark, Judge. Date of Accident: August 6, […]