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

November 27, 2015 by admin

Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Past and future medical expenses — Additur — Error to grant plaintiff’s motion for additur without including in order an explanation why additur was warranted or providing option for new trial in lieu of additur

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2636aTop of Form

Torts
— Automobile accident — Damages — Past and future medical expenses — Additur
— Error to grant plaintiff’s motion for additur without including in order an
explanation why additur was warranted or providing option for new trial in lieu
of additur — Moreover, additur was not appropriate where evidence was
conflicting regarding cause of radiating pain in plaintiff’s arm, so that jury
could have concluded that costs associated with radiating pain were unrelated
to automobile accident

ANTONIO FERRER, Appellant, v. ANA LA SERNA, Appellee. 4th
District. Case No. 4D14-2475. November 25, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court
for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood,
Judge; L.T. Case No. 11-031247 (18). Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, General
Counsel of United Automobile Insurance Company, Miami, for appellant. Nancy
Little Hoffman of Nancy Little Hoffman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

(LEVINE, J.) The issue in this case is whether the trial
court erred in awarding additur. We find that the trial court erred in not
providing its findings in support of additur. Furthermore, because the evidence
was conflicting and the jury could have reached its verdict consistent with the
evidence, we reverse with instruction to reinstate the jury verdict.

Antonio Ferrer struck Ana La Serna’s car at a low speed.
Although she did not go see a doctor immediately, a few days later La Serna
went to see her doctor, Dr. Epstein. Dr. Epstein found the accident had caused
La Serna acute distress, a neck injury, sprains, and an aggravation to a
preexisting back condition. Epstein also discovered La Serna suffered from a
degenerative spinal condition. Although the accident had not caused the
condition, it had resulted in the condition becoming symptomatic.

Dr. Epstein recommended La Serna not get chiropractic back
adjustments as they could aggravate her condition. Despite Dr. Epstein’s
recommendation, La Serna received chiropractic back adjustments from Dr.
Rodriguez on a regular basis, multiple times a week, for several months.

Nearly a year after the accident, La Serna started to feel a
radiating pain in her forearm. Dr. Epstein thought the inflammation in her neck
caused the radiating pain in her arm, but was unable to objectively correlate
the accident to the radiating pain. Dr. Troiano, who was retained by the
defense, also indicated there were no objective findings to support a
connection between La Serna’s radiating pain and the car accident. Dr.
Rodriguez, however, expressed “one hundred percent” certainty that the accident
resulted La Serna’s symptoms.

La Serna sued Ferrer for motor vehicle negligence, seeking
$11,695.31 for past and future medical expenses. The jury returned a verdict
for La Serna and found she had suffered a permanent injury. The jury awarded
her $8,000 in damages for past and future medical expenses.

La Serna moved for additur, arguing the evidence was
undisputed and that she should be awarded an additur for $3,695.31, the
difference between what she requested and what the jury awarded. The trial
court granted La Serna’s motion. However, its order contained neither an
explanation for why additur was warranted nor an option for a new trial in lieu
of additur.

On appeal, Ferrer argues the trial court erred when it
failed to include in its order the justification for additur or the option for
a new trial. Ferrer requests that this court conduct an independent review of
the record to determine whether the facts of this case permit an additur award.

A trial court’s additur award is reversed only where there
has been a clear abuse of discretion. Aurbach v. Gallina, 721 So. 2d
756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Pursuant to section 768.043, Florida Statutes, a trial court
may grant additur if the court determines the amount awarded was clearly
inadequate. The statute sets forth the factors the court must consider before
awarding additur:

(a)
Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption
on the part of the trier of fact.

(b)
Whether it clearly appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in
reaching the verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the
amounts of damages recoverable.

(c)
Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or
arrived at the amount of damages by speculation or conjecture.

(d)
Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages
proved and the injury suffered.

(e)
Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it
could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.

§ 768.043(2)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat.

Furthermore, when awarding additur, the trial court must
provide its findings in support of the award. See Airstar, Inc. v. Gubbins,
668 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). If the trial court fails to set forth
its findings, ordinarily the appellate court will relinquish jurisdiction so
the trial court can specify its grounds for awarding additur. Id. However,
where it is apparent from the record that awarding additur was an abuse of
discretion, we will reinstate the jury verdict. See id. at 312-13.

In the present case, the trial judge’s order did not set
forth any findings in support of additur nor did it reference the statutory
criteria. Although normally we would relinquish jurisdiction so the trial court
could make the requisite findings, a review of the record leads us to conclude
the trial court abused its discretion.

“Additur is an appropriate remedy only where a damage award
is so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court.” Aurbach, 721
So. 2d at 758. Thus, where the “undisputed evidence” supports an award of damages
and the jury fails to make such an award, the trial court must award additur. See
Ortlieb v. Butts
, 849 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). But where the
“evidence is conflicting and the jury could have reached its verdict in a
manner consistent with the evidence,” the trial court may not award additur. Id.

In Airstar, the evidence was in “sharp conflict” as
to whether the plaintiff suffered a permanent injury as a result of a car
accident. Airstar, 668 So. 2d at 312-13. Although the jury returned a
verdict finding the plaintiff had not suffered permanent injury, the trial
court granted additur. Upon examining the record, this court found the jury
could have reached its verdict in a manner consistent with the evidence. Thus,
to award additur, the trial court would have had to come to a conclusion
contrary to the jury’s. “Mindful that a trial judge should not sit as a seventh
juror with veto power,” we reinstated the verdict. Id. at 313.

In this case, the evidence was conflicting regarding whether
the accident caused the radiating pain in La Serna’s arm. Of the doctors who
testified, only the chiropractor, Dr. Rodriguez, was able to say with certainty
that the accident caused La Serna’s symptoms. The other testimony was, at best,
equivocal, because the doctors were unable to objectively establish the
accident caused La Serna’s radiating pain. Furthermore, Dr. Epstein told La
Serna that she should not get chiropractic neck adjustments because it could
aggravate her symptoms. La Serna nevertheless got her neck adjusted multiple
times a week for several months.

Because the evidence was in conflict, the jury could have
concluded, consistent with the evidence, that the costs associated with La
Serna’s radiating pain were unrelated to the accident. See id. For the
trial court to have granted additur, it would have had to come to the opposite
conclusion and determined the accident caused La Serna’s radiating pain. Id.
Therefore, because the “undisputed evidence” did not support an award of
additur, we remand to the trial court with instruction to reinstate the jury’s
verdict. See Ortlieb, 849 So. 2d at 1167.

In summary, we hold the trial court erred when it did not
state its findings in support of additur in the record. We further hold the
trial court abused its discretion in awarding additur because the record does
not support the award.1

Reversed and remanded. (DAMOORGIAN and KLINGENSMITH,
JJ., concur.)

__________________

1Although we reverse on the ground
that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding additur, we further note
the trial court erred when it failed to provide Ferrer the option of a new
trial. See Concept, L.C. v. Gesten, 662 So. 2d 970, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA
1995).

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