Florida Physician's Ins. Reciprocal v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 12 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63327,63327 |
| Citation | 452 So.2d 514 |
| Parties | FLORIDA PHYSICIAN'S INSURANCE RECIPROCAL, et al., Petitioners, v. Thomas Miacle STANLEY, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James C. Rinaman, Jr. and Nick V. Pulignano, Jr. of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for James Eugene Glenn, J. Eugene Glenn, M.D., P.A., and Florida Physician's Ins. Reciprocal.
L. Haldane Taylor, Jacksonville, for Florida Patient's Compensation Fund.
James H. McCarty, Jr. of Boyd, Jenerette, Staas, Joos, Williams & Felton, Jacksonville, for St. Vincent's Medical Center and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
James T. Terrell and Wayne Hogan of Brown, Terrell & Hogan, Jacksonville, for respondents.
This case is before us to review a district court decision, Stanley v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 425 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), which reversed a judgment for the defendants in a medical malpractice action and remanded for a new trial. The district court held that the jury verdict had been tainted by improperly adduced evidence as to the charitable and governmental sources for the special therapy and education needed by the injured minor plaintiff and available to his family at little or no cost regardless of who caused the injury. Id. at 609. In an unpublished order denying the defendants' motion for rehearing the district court certified to us that this decision passes on the following question of great public importance Should Florida courts exclude from jury consideration evidence of the availability of free public schools, and free or low-cost public or private non-profit therapy services to all members of the public because of the common law collateral source rule?
We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question in the negative and quash the decision under review.
Tommy Stanley and his parents brought a medical malpractice action against the petitioners to recover damages for the retardation and cerebral palsy Tommy has suffered since birth. The Stanleys alleged that Tommy's injuries resulted from the negligent failure to diagnose and properly treat an oxygen deprivation which began shortly before Tommy's birth. Petitioners denied that theory of injury and asserted that congenital defects caused Tommy's debilitated condition. Both sides produced expert witnesses to support their respective theories of causation.
In order to prove specific damages the Stanleys presented expert testimony as to the expected cost of physical therapy, speech therapy, and special education Tommy would need. The trial court permitted the petitioners, over the Stanleys' objection, to cross-examine these expert witnesses about the availability and effectiveness of free or low-cost charitable and governmental programs available in the community to meet Tommy's needs. Petitioners' counsel used this information in summation to argue that Tommy could be taken care of in the community if the jury did not find the petitioners liable for Tommy's injuries. The jury found no liability, and the Stanleys appealed. The district court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the admission of evidence concerning the available charitably and governmentally funded care violated the common-law collateral source rule.
Petitioners claim that evidence of free or low cost services from governmental or charitable agencies available to anyone with specific disabilities is admissible on the issue of future damages. We agree. Such evidence violates neither the statutory nor the common-law collateral source rule and does not, therefore, require a new trial.
The district court correctly found section 768.50, Florida Statutes (1981), inapplicable to the unliquidated future damages at issue here. Section 768.50, which requires the trial court to reduce the jury verdict award in medical malpractice cases by the amount of all collateral source payments available to the plaintiff, only addresses liquidated collateral source payments which have been paid. However, the district court should also have found that the admission in this case of evidence concerning future governmental and charitable services did not violate the common-law collateral source rule.
We believe that the common-law collateral source rule should be limited to those benefits earned in some way by the plaintiff. Governmental or charitable benefits available to all citizens, regardless of wealth or status, should be admissible for the jury to consider in determining the reasonable cost of necessary future care. Keeping such evidence from the jury may provide an undeserved and unnecessary windfall to the plaintiff. We find persuasive the following reasoning advanced by the Supreme Court of Illinois in refusing to allow a plaintiff a windfall recovery for the value of free medical services received in a charitable hospital:
[T]he policy behind the collateral-source rule simply is not applicable if the plaintiff has incurred no expense, obligation, or liability in obtaining the services for which he seeks compensation. This is further made apparent upon comparison of the present case with a situation in which the collateral-source rule is frequently applied, that of the defendant who seeks a reduction in damages because the plaintiff has received insurance benefits. (Emphasis added.) (22 Am.Jur.2d Damages sec. 210, at 293-94 (1965).) In a situation in which the injured party incurs no expense,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington by Washington v. Barnes Hosp., 77042
...that many public benefits hinge upon a plaintiff's continued indigence. Id. 361 S.E.2d at 738-39. In Florida Physician's Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So.2d 514, 515-16 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court determined that the collateral source rule should not be applied to public sc......
-
Gormley v. GTE Products Corp.
...issues." Stanley v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 425 So.2d 608, 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), reversed on other grounds, 452 So.2d 514 (Fla.1984). 1 It would seem, then, that because the cases are in conflict, we must choose the rule to be We think the better rule is that evidence of t......
-
Joerg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...(Fla. 2d DCA June 21, 2013) , on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Florida Physician's Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley,452 So.2d 514 (Fla.1984). We agree that the Second District misapplied Stanley ,and we have jurisdiction. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.......
-
Sutton v. State
...rendered a decision on the merits. See House, 678 So.2d at 1284; Espinosa, 612 So.2d at 1380. Also, in Florida Physician's Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So.2d 514 (Fla.1984), this Court held that jurisdiction existed under article V, section 3(b)(4), even though the question of great......
-
Florida Supreme Court On Evidence Of Collateral Source Benefits
...as Medicare and Medicaid. The decision receded from the Court's prior decision in Florida Physician's Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1984), which had allowed limited admission of evidence concerning certain free or low-cost future collateral source benefits. Given the......
-
Florida Supreme Court Rules Defendants May Not Admit Evidence Of Potential Collateral Source Benefits Provided By Social Legislation, Such As Medicare And Medicaid
...as Medicare and Medicaid. The decision receded from the court's prior decision in Florida Physician's Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1984), which had allowed limited admission of evidence concerning certain free or low-cost future collateral source benefits. The Joerg......