Cason v. Smith, 77-2160
| Decision Date | 22 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-2160,77-2160 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Johnson CASON and Christine Cason, Individually and as man and wife, Appellants, v. Eugene SMITH and Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellees. |
Pelzner, Schwedock & Finkelstein, Miami, for appellants.
Goodhart & Rosner, Greene & Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
ON REHEARING GRANTED
The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered for the defendants after the jury returned a verdict which revealed that it had found that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the then-applicable no-fault threshold of establishing permanent injury or $1,000.00 in reasonable medical expenses. They claim reversible error, on the authority of Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., Inc., 336 So.2d 566, 571 (Fla.1976), in the trial judge's refusal to permit the introduction of various hospital and doctors' bills on the basis of the plaintiffs' testimony alone and without that of the treating physician that the expenses incurred were reasonable and necessary. The Garrett case does hold that expert testimony to this effect is not necessary to justify the admission of the bills, when, as in Garrett, they have been paid. See cases collected in Annot., Necessity and Sufficiency of Evidence as to Reasonableness of Medical Expenses, 12 A.L.R.3rd 1347, 1376-1384.
At the trial below, however, the plaintiffs' counsel did not proffer that the bills in question had in fact been paid. Ordinarily, such a failure to make a proffer which would demonstrate that the proposed evidence was improperly excluded would prevent appellate consideration or acceptance of the point. E.g., Stager v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 163 So.2d 15, 17 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964), cert. disch., 174 So.2d 540 (Fla.1965). In this case, however, this requirement cannot obtain because the record shows, for reasons that need not be detailed, that the trial judge effectively interfered with the plaintiffs' ability to complete any proffer they wished to make. See Musachia v. Terry, 140 So.2d 605, 607-608 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962); Jones v. Clark,418 P.2d 792, 799 (Wyo.1966); Hepp v. Hepp, 420 P.2d 118 (Wyo.1966).
Nevertheless, on this record, we simply cannot tell whether the bills had been paid, in which case the plaintiffs would be entitled to a new trial, or had not, in which case they would not be so entitled. Under these circumstances, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Motors Corp. v. Ellis
...it precluded both AMC's counsel and the trial and appellate courts from knowing the contents of the statement. Cf. Cason v. Smith, 365 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Musachia v. Terry, 140 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA Counsel for the plaintiffs urges that this error was not properly preserved for......
-
Seitlin & Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
...571 (Fla.1976) (plaintiff's testimony created jury issue on reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses). Compare Cason v. Smith, 365 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (applying Garrett where medical bills were actually paid), with Easton v. Bradford, 390 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (app......
-
Callihan v. Turtle Kraals, Ltd., 86-2784
...1st DCA 1984); Easton v. Bradford, 390 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), review dismissed, 399 So.2d 1141 (Fla.1981); Cason v. Smith, 365 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Ellis, 143 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and based upon the authori......
-
Thunderbird Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Reed By and Through Reed
...to the party making the proffer and generally is reversible error. Davis v. Pfund, 479 So.2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Cason v. Smith, 365 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Musachia v. Terry, 140 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). While there may be situations where the preclusion would constitute ha......