Johnson v. Phillips, 76--398
| Decision Date | 20 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--398,76--398 |
| Citation | 345 So.2d 1116 |
| Parties | Mary Lewis JOHNSON and Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Mary L. PHILLIPS, Edmund Phillips and Auto Owners Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
A. J. Melkus, Lakeland, for appellants.
Eugene W. Harris, Peterson, Carr, Harris & Seacrest, Lakeland, for appellees Phillips.
Edward E. Fessenden, Jr., Lane, Massey, Trohn, Clarke, Bertrand & Smith, Lakeland, for appellee Auto Owners Ins. Co.
The only point on this appeal and cross appeal which merits discussion is whether or not the appellee, Mary Phillips, crossed the threshold requirement provided for in Florida Statute 627.737(2).
Appellants contend that Mrs. Phillips did not prove within a reasonable medical probability that she suffered a permanent injury. In support of this contention appellants rely on Avis Rent--A--Car System, Inc. v. Stuart, 301 So.2d 29 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). In that case this court held that the injured party did not have a permanent injury, although at the time of trial he was still experiencing pain in his lower back, tightness in his upper back, a certain amount of limitation of motion of his right arm, and could not lift objects which prior to the accident he was capable of lifting. This was held to be insufficient proof of permanent injury because the only medical testimony was that the injured party had no permanent injury. There was no medical testimony that the subjective complaint, I.e., pain, was permanent.
The medical testimony in the instant case shows that Mrs. Phillips was suffering from a post-concussion syndrome or post-traumatic syndrome. The symptoms of such syndromes are headaches and dizziness. Dr. Taxdal, a Neurosurgeon, was asked these questions and gave these answers:
'Q And at this time now that we have had two successive normal electroencephalogram tests, your position is that the injury is not permanent but the complaints may well be permanent, the subjective complaints.
A Yes, I am so stating that.
Q Doctor, just so that there is no question when you say you are so stating that, you are stating with an opinion based upon reasonable medical probability that this patient does not in fact have a permanent injury. Is that correct?
A I have stated that within reasonable medical certainty I feel the patient's complaints are permanent. I have further stated for clarification I do not feel she has permanent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golden v. State, s. AF-322
... ... Johnson ... MR. JOHNSON (prosecuting attorney): May the projector be used so a copy may be shown to the ... ...
-
Hunter v. US
...(Nesbitt, J., dissenting) (section 627.737(2) does not mention any subjective elements of injury). Contra Johnson v. Phillips, 345 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 131 (Fla.1978) (holding that the threshold requirement of "permanent injury" in section 627.737......
-
Jones v. Smith
...complaints obtained resulting from an initial organic injury." The requested instruction followed the decision in Johnson v. Phillips, 345 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The trial court denied the request; it did not give an instruction defining "permanent injury." The jury returned a verdi......
-
Philon v. Reid
...complaints resulting from an initial organic injury." Appellee argues that we should recede from our holding in Johnson v. Phillips, 345 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 131 (Fla.1978) and instead concur with the Third District's contrary holding in Rivero v. Mansfield,......