668 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1996), 85803, Domino's Pizza v. Gibson

Docket Nº85803.
Citation668 So.2d 593, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S 79
Party NameDOMINO'S PIZZA, et al., Petitioners, v. Richard E. GIBSON, Respondent.
Case DateFebruary 22, 1996
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Page 593

668 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1996)

21 Fla. L. Weekly S 79

DOMINO'S PIZZA, et al., Petitioners,

v.

Richard E. GIBSON, Respondent.

No. 85803.

Supreme Court of Florida.

February 22, 1996

Page 594

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal; Certified Great Public Importance; First District; Case No. 93-2526.

Millard L. Fretland of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond, Stackhouse & Stone, Pensacola, for Petitioners.

Louis K. Rosenbloum and Mark J. Proctor of Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Pensacola, for Respondent.

Jack A. Weiss of Conroy, Simberg & Lewis, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Wausau Insurance Company, amicus curiae.

HARDING, Justice.

We have for review Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance:

Does section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes, preclude expert testimony converting blood alcohol content from a percentage of blood serum to a percentage of whole blood?

Id. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question in the negative.

Richard E. Gibson was injured in an automobile accident while working as a pizza delivery man for Domino's Pizza. At the hospital, Gibson's serum blood alcohol content measured 0.293 milligrams of alcohol per deciliter of blood serum.

Gibson filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. His employer, Domino's Pizza, and the insurance carrier, Alexis, Inc., defended the claim on the grounds that section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes (1991), 1 precluded Gibson from receiving workers' compensation benefits for his injuries.

Gibson filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence of his post-accident blood alcohol content on the ground that the test was performed on blood serum rather than whole blood. Gibson cited the decision in Florida Tile Industries v. Dozier, 561 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), as authority that blood serum test results are inadmissible under section 440.09(3).

After hearing on the motion, the judge of compensation claims granted Gibson's motion, thereby excluding all evidence of Gibson's blood alcohol content. The judge subsequently issued a final order ruling that Gibson's accident was compensable and that

Page 595

the employer and carrier were liable for the payment of benefits.

On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal stated that it was constrained by its previous opinion in Florida Tile, which construed section 440.09(3) as making no provision for the testing of blood serum to determine blood alcohol content. 654 So.2d at 638. However, the court went on to state that it found...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • 689 N.E.2d 385 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1997), 1-95-2142, People v. Green
    • United States
    • Illinois United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 31, 1997
    ...1996); accord Florida Tile Industries v. Dozier, 561 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla.App.1990), overruled on other grounds, Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 668 So.2d 593 (Fla.1996). A. The first in defendant's "series of errors" concerns the testimony of Dr. Rosenfeld that defendant's blood serum-a......
  • United States Sugar Corp v. Henson, 060602 FLSC, 01-1127
    • United States
    • June 6, 2002
    ...cases has been implicitly recognized by the Florida Supreme Court." Henson, 787 So. 2d at 11. In Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 668 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1996), we addressed whether section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes (1991), precluded the admission of expert testimony "converting blood alc......
  • 677 So.2d 332 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1996), 95-3004, Fernandez v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) Fourth District
    • June 5, 1996
    ...rules would provide "all defendants with sufficient notice to permit an opportunity to object if probation is imposed." Hart, 668 So.2d at 593. A trial court is not mandated to impose the conditions listed in section 948.03. However, section 948.03(1), which was amended effective ......
  • 922 So.2d 1002 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2006), 5D05-606, Grubb v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) Fifth District
    • January 27, 2006
    ...among the first eleven general conditions of probation listed in the rules of criminal procedure. See Williams, 712 So.2d at 764; Hart, 668 So.2d at 593. We found that if the defendant had not been given notice of the imposition of these sanctions during the oral pronouncement of sentence, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • 689 N.E.2d 385 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1997), 1-95-2142, People v. Green
    • United States
    • Illinois United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 31, 1997
    ...1996); accord Florida Tile Industries v. Dozier, 561 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla.App.1990), overruled on other grounds, Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 668 So.2d 593 (Fla.1996). A. The first in defendant's "series of errors" concerns the testimony of Dr. Rosenfeld that defendant's blood serum-a......
  • United States Sugar Corp v. Henson, 060602 FLSC, 01-1127
    • United States
    • June 6, 2002
    ...cases has been implicitly recognized by the Florida Supreme Court." Henson, 787 So. 2d at 11. In Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 668 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1996), we addressed whether section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes (1991), precluded the admission of expert testimony "converting blood alc......
  • 677 So.2d 332 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1996), 95-3004, Fernandez v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) Fourth District
    • June 5, 1996
    ...rules would provide "all defendants with sufficient notice to permit an opportunity to object if probation is imposed." Hart, 668 So.2d at 593. A trial court is not mandated to impose the conditions listed in section 948.03. However, section 948.03(1), which was amended effective ......
  • 922 So.2d 1002 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2006), 5D05-606, Grubb v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Court of Appeal of Florida (US) Fifth District
    • January 27, 2006
    ...among the first eleven general conditions of probation listed in the rules of criminal procedure. See Williams, 712 So.2d at 764; Hart, 668 So.2d at 593. We found that if the defendant had not been given notice of the imposition of these sanctions during the oral pronouncement of sentence, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT