Grossman v. Beard, 80-2124
| Decision Date | 13 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-2124,80-2124 |
| Citation | 410 So.2d 175 |
| Parties | Michael T. GROSSMAN and Karla J. Grossman, husband and wife, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Malcolm BEARD, Sheriff, Hillsborough County, State of Florida, and Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice, and Appalachian Insurance Company of Providence, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellees, Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice and Appalachian Insurance Company of Providence, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert Goldhagen, Tampa, for appellants/cross-appellees.
James E. Thompson of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for appellee Malcolm Beard.
Michael L. Kinney of Marlow, Shofi, Ortmayer, Smith, Connell & Valerius, Tampa, for appellees/cross-appellants Hillsborough County Bd. of Crim. Justice and Appalachian Ins. Co. of Providence.
Plaintiffs Michael and Karla Grossman appeal and defendants Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice (HCBCJ) and Appalachian Insurance Company cross-appeal a final judgment awarding appellants nothing from appellee/defendant Sheriff Malcolm Beard, but.$19,000 damages from cross-appellants. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant Michael Grossman was employed by the Hillsborough County Hospital as an attendant on the closed psychiatric ward when he was abducted by prisoner Robert Negron, who was making an escape from the HCBCJ's custody, on June 12, 1975. Grossman suffered psychological trauma as a result of the incident and began psychiatric treatment with Dr. Coffer immediately following his brief abduction. The treatment included hospitalization and continued consultations until September 30, 1975. At that point, Grossman was discharged as recovered from the effects of this particular incident. However, Dr. Coffer advised him to continue treatment at the Hillsborough County Guidance Center because of his "preexisting personality problems and conflicts."
More than a year after Grossman's brief abduction and eight months after his discharge by Coffer, he began an extensive course of treatment with Dr. Groff, another psychiatrist.
At trial, appellees were allowed over appellants' objection to introduce evidence that Grossman's medical and hospital bills were paid under Workers' Compensation. Defense counsel's position was that the collateral source rule did not bar this testimony concerning the reasonableness and necessity of this extended psychiatric treatment. Since appellees had an expert who would testify that this type of psychiatric treatment is ineffective unless the patient bears the expense of treatment, the trial court permitted this line of questioning. This was error.
Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 285 So.2d 414 (Fla.1973), ably and concisely sets forth the law on this issue:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanley By and Through Stanley v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., AH-500
...10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Cook v. Eney, 277 So.2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. den., 285 So.2d 414 (Fla.1973). But cf., Grossman v. Beard, 410 So.2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). 12 In each of those cases, however, the collateral source evidence had a specific and articulable propensity for genuin......
-
Gormley v. GTE Products Corp.
...Clark v. Tampa Electric Co., 416 So.2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 426 So.2d 29 (Fla.1983); Grossman v. Beard, 410 So.2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Williams v. Pincombe, 309 So.2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Of these, the pre-Cook decision in Seminole Shell Co. v. Clearwater Fl......
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe
...and after accident; error could not be cured even by repeated instruction), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 29 (Fla.1983); Grossman v. Beard, 410 So.2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (reversible error to admit evidence that plaintiff's hospital bill was paid by workers' compensation); Williams v. Pincombe, ......
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe
...and after accident; error could not be cured even by repeated instruction), rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1983); Grossman v. Beard, 410 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (reversible error to admit evidence that plaintiff's hospital bill was paid by workers' compensation); Williams v. Pincomb......