Cook v. Eney, 72--719
| Decision Date | 01 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--719,72--719 |
| Parties | Herman COOK, Appellant, v. Irving P. ENEY, M.D., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Feldman & Abramson, and Charles P. Lipcon, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker, Gray & Powers, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and JOHNSON, DEWEY M., Associate Judge.
In this medical malpractice suit, plaintiff has appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee.
We do not deem it necessary to set forth all the evidence adduced during the trial of this cause, for the only issue which is dispositive of our ruling herein is as follows: Did the trial court err in allowing defense counsel to question plaintiff-appellant with respect to his receipt of social security and workmen's compensation benefits?
It is appellee's contention that the trial court did not so err because this evidence regarding receipt of social security and workmen's compensation benefits was offered for the limited purpose of rebutting or impeaching the appellant's earlier testimony concerning his motivation and desire to return to work. We cannot and do not agree with the appellee's contention herein.
As noted in 77 A.L.R.2d 1154--1167, it is the general rule that to bring before the jury information as to an injured plaintiff's right to workmen's compensation benefits constitutes prejudicial error, since such information is likely to influence the jury against the plaintiff on the issues of liability or damages. In a liability suit against a third party (the appellee in this case), the issue of whether the plaintiff has received the benefits of any payment under workmen's compensation, social security or other insurance-type programs is not material. The purpose of the suit is to attempt to establish liability on the part of the defendant, and in most instances the presence of benefits inuring to the plaintiff as a result of his injuries is not a proper consideration for the jury. Gates & Sons, Inc. v. Brock, 199 So.2d 291 (Fla.App.1st, 1967), and cases cited therein.
The appellee's argument that evidence of social security and workmen's compensation benefits was offered only to rebut appellant's testimony regarding his motivation to return to work was effectively disposed of in the United States Supreme Court case of Eichel v. New York Central Railroad Company, 375 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weborg v. Jenny
...7.Gormley v. GTE Prods. Corp., 587 So.2d 455, 458 (Fla.1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848, 850 (Fla.Ct.App.1973), the court of appeals concluded that evidence of receipt of collateral benefits affected the determination of liability and wa......
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co.
...4th DCA 1997), review denied, 707 So.2d 1126 (Fla.1998); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). We are not concerned here with a situation like the one that obtained in State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company v. Gor......
-
Werner v. Lane
...the jury in the following cases: Biehler v. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 30 Ill.App.3d 435, 333 N.E.2d 716 (1975); Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848 (Fla.App.1973); Amos v. Stroud, 252 Ark. 1100, 482 S.W.2d 592 (1972); Suchy v. Moore, 29 Ohio St.2d 99, 279 N.E.2d 878 (1972); Tipton v. So......
-
Stanley By and Through Stanley v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., AH-500
...been held in certain circumstances to require a new trial because the evidence had a highly prejudicial effect. E.g., Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848, 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. den., 285 So.2d 414 (Fla.1973) ("The admission of evidence of receipt of [social security and workers' compensatio......