Ridenour v. Sharek, 78-1646
| Decision Date | 27 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1646,78-1646 |
| Parties | James B. RIDENOUR and M. Jane Ridenour, his wife, Appellants, v. Albert Stanley SHAREK and Government Employees Insurance Company, etc., Appellees. /T4-168. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce W. Jacobus of Ferrell & Jacobus, Melbourne, for appellants.
W. Marvin Hardy, III, of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, P. A., Orlando, for appellees.
The appellants claim the trial court should have directed a verdict for the plaintiffs on the question of whether Ridenour's medical and hospital expenses exceed the $1,000.00 threshold limit imposed by the applicable section of Florida's No-Fault Insurance Statute. 1 We agree with appellant that the record conclusively establishes their right to recover medical and hospital costs. The trial court directed a verdict for appellants on the issue of liability and allowed the question of damages to go to the jury on a special verdict form. 2
James B. Ridenour filed a law suit against the appellees, Albert Stanley Sharek and his insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company, following an automobile accident in which Sharek rear-ended Ridenour's vehicle. The testimony established that shortly after the accident Ridenour developed a tremor in his arms, which gradually became worse. He consulted his family doctor, Dr. Storey, and a specialist in neurology, Dr. Scott. Dr. Scott admitted Ridenour to a hospital in May 1974, and ran a battery of tests to determine conclusively the cause of the tremor. The total amount of medical bills incurred by Ridenour through that point was $1,858.50. The appellees did not dispute the amount nor the reasonableness of the bills.
Ultimately, Dr. Scott diagnosed Ridenour as having Parkinson's disease. There was conflicting medical testimony as to whether or not Parkinson's disease could be caused by a trauma such as Ridenour suffered in the rear-end collision. The jury found for the appellees on that issue, and we cannot disturb their findings. Keith v. Amrep Corporation, 312 So.2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
However, both medical witnesses testified that it was reasonably necessary and proper in order to determine that the tremor was not related to the accident, to refer Ridenour to the specialist, and have him hospitalized for a battery of diagnostic tests. The attorney for Ridenour asked Dr. Scott:
Would you go to the time that you put him in the hospital? At that time, was it reasonably necessary to hospitalize Mr. Ridenour, to examine him and run tests on him to rule out the possibility of any traumatic injury he might have received as a result of this accident?
Dr. Scott answered:
I felt there were other possibilities, certainly not uppermost in my mind problems which could possibly be related to the history of the accident.
The attorney asked:
Did you hospitalize him to make a determination as to these other factors by tests?
Dr. Scott replied:
Hospitalized him really to determine the basis of the symptoms. This testimony was not countered nor disputed by any other evidence.
This case is remarkably similar to Banyas v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 359 So.2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In Banyas, a plaintiff sued for damages following an automobile accident and appealed a judgment for the defendant. In the accident the plaintiff sustained a blow to his chest. He was hospitalized twice after complaining of chest pains, and ultimately was referred to a cardiologist who performed diagnostic tests. The specialist concluded that the plaintiff had a heart problem not related to the accident. However the treating physician who referred the plaintiff to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. Gonzalez
...v. Polk Cnty., 410 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Peek v. Stevens, 395 So.2d 617, 617–18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So.2d 222, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). As such, appellants suggest that this court's recent decision in Pack v. Geico General Insurance Co., 119 So.3d 1284 ......
-
Plana v. Sainz
...v. Polk County, 410 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Peek v. Stevens, 395 So.2d 617, 617-18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So.2d 222, 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). However, the Second District in State, Department of Transportation v. Rosario, 782 So.2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), es......
-
Mason v. District Bd. of Trustees of Broward Community College, 93-2531
...of a finding that appellee caused appellant's injury. Blanford v. Polk County, 410 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1379 (Fla.1981). However, in the instant case, the jury specifically found there was negligence on t......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brooks, 93-2074
...is not at issue, a zero verdict may not be sustained. See Peek v. Stevens, 395 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ridenour v. Sharek, 388 So.2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So.2d 1379 (Fla.1981). However, Johnson's medical payments were not at issue in this case. Those expenses h......