Van v. Schmidt

• Decision Date: 04 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. SC11–1467.,SC11–1467.
• Citation: 122 So.3d 243
• Parties: Charles VAN, Sr., et ux., Petitioners, v. Daniel SCHMIDT, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

122 So.3d 243

Charles VAN, Sr., et ux., Petitioners,

v.Daniel SCHMIDT, Respondent.

No. SC11–1467.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 4, 2013.

T. Bradley McRae of McRae & McRae, Lake City, FL; and Edwin B. Browning, Jr. and George T. Reeves of Davis, Schnitker, Reeves & Browning, P.A., Madison, FL, for Petitioners.

Richard A. Sherman, Sr. and James W. Sherman of Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL; and Sonya Wesner of Law Offices of Patricia E. Garagozlo, Jacksonville, FL, for Respondent.

PARIENTE, J.

This case concerns the proper standard of review and the appropriate remedy when an appellate court reviews a trial court's order granting a new trial on the ground that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, where the trial court's order was premised, at least in part, on an error of law. In this case, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial based on the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's order, however, was premised, at least in part, on an error of law—specifically, that the jury could not reject the uncontroverted testimony of the experts. On appeal, in reviewing the trial court's order, the First District Court of Appeal did not give deference to the trial court's erroneous conclusion of law. Schmidt v. Van, 65 So.3d 1105, 1107–08 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

In Kuebler v. Ferris, 65 So.3d 1154, 1158–59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the Fourth District Court of Appeal expressly disagreed with the First District's approach in Schmidt, emphasizing the “very limited authority of the appellate court in reviewing the broad discretion granted to the trial court,” even where the trial court's grant of a new trial is premised, at least in part, on an error of law. Because of this express and direct conflict between the standard of review applied in Schmidt and Kuebler, we have jurisdiction. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We resolve this conflict by holding—consistent with the appellate standard of review generally applied to all trial court orders—that an appellate court properly applies a de novo standard of review to a trial court's conclusions of law in an order granting a new trial based on the manifest weight of the evidence, giving no deference to the trial court's legal conclusions. Therefore, we approve the reasoning of Schmidt to the extent that the First District's analysis was consistent with this holding, and we disapprove Kuebler to the extent that the Fourth District interpreted this Court's decisions in E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes, 697 So.2d 825 (Fla.1997), and Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999), to require deference to a trial court's conclusions of law, even where the trial court's order was premised, at least in part, on an error of law.

However, although a trial court's conclusions of law are not entitled to deference, its findings of facts and determinations of credibility are still entitled to deference because of the trial court's superior vantage point of having been present during the entire trial. In this case, after correctly affording no deference to the trial court's erroneous conclusion of law in Schmidt, the First District in its analysis then misapplied the standards set forth by this Court in E.R. Squibb & Sons and Stuckey by failing to defer to the trial court's findings of fact and determinations of credibility and to recognize the trial court's role in evaluating a motion for new trial. Instead, in reversing the trial court's order, the First District incorrectly focused on whether competent, substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict and reweighed the evidence in the trial court's stead. We therefore also have jurisdiction in this case based on the First District's misapplication of our precedent. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; see also State v. McMahon, 94 So.3d 468, 471 n. 2 (Fla.2012) (recognizing misapplication as a basis for conflict jurisdiction).

Although we conclude that the First District was correct in reversing the trial court's order, we quash the First District's decision because we conclude that reinstatement of the jury verdict was not the proper remedy in this case. Instead, when an appellate court has determined that a trial court's grant of a new trial is premised, at least in part, on an error of law, the inquiry then becomes whether the trial court would have granted a new trial but for the error of law. Because we are unable to ascertain from a review of the record in this case whether the trial court would have reached the same result but for the error of law, the proper remedy is to return the case to the trial court for reconsideration of its order granting a new trial in light of the correct legal principles set forth in this opinion—specifically, that the jury could properly reject the experts' uncontroverted testimony, provided that the jury's rejection of the uncontroverted expert testimony was premised on some reasonable basis in the evidence.

FACTS AND BACKGROUND

Charles Van, Sr., and his wife sued Daniel J. Schmidt, seeking recovery for injuries allegedly sustained in an October 2007 automobile collision, in which Schmidt rear-ended Van's vehicle while intoxicated. Van asserted that as a result of the rear-end collision, he sustained injuries that included neck pain, resulting in a cervical spinal fusion surgery (surgery on the cervical vertebrae in the neck) in 2009. Liability was not contested; instead, Schmidt's defense was that the automobile accident was not the cause of Van's injuries. In contesting causation, Schmidt contended that the accident was a minor one, which caused minimal damage to both vehicles. Schmidt also pointed to Van's medical history, which included preexisting back pain and spinal degeneration, a prior cervical spinal fusion surgery in 1991, and a prior car accident in 1998. Finally, Schmidt called into question Van's credibility.

All of the medical experts who testified at trial, including the defense expert witness, agreed that the 2007 automobile collision was, at least in part, the cause of Van's neck injury. The Vans introduced a videotaped deposition of the first expert, Dr. Zhou, a pain specialist. Dr. Zhou stated that Van first came into the clinic in August 2008 complaining of neck and lower back pain. Dr. Zhou did not anticipate that Van will ever be pain-free. In Dr. Zhou's opinion, Van's neck and lower back pain, as well as the 2009 cervical spinal fusion surgery, were a result of the 2007 accident. Dr. Zhou stated that the back pain was a result of the accident because Van did not have back pain before the accident.¹

The second expert, Dr. Feussner, a neurologist, started seeing Van in December 2007 and referred him to Dr. Scott, the neurosurgeon who performed the 2009 cervical spinal fusion surgery after the accident. When Van provided his prior medical history to Dr. Feussner, he did not mention the prior cervical spinal fusion surgery in 1991 or the 1998 car accident. According to Dr. Feussner, there is not necessarily a correlation between the amount of damage to a vehicle and to an occupant. Dr. Feussner testified that it was his medical opinion that Van suffered a permanent injury to his neck that was directly related to and caused by the October 2007 accident. Even with a preexisting problem such as degeneration, which Van had, trauma suffered during a rear-end collision can accelerate or aggravate the problem. In contrast to his conclusion with respect to Van's neck injury, Dr. Feussner testified that it was difficult to correlate the lower back pain with the accident because Van had complained of lower back pain prior to the accident, including just seventeen days before.

The third expert, Dr. Scott, was the neurosurgeon who performed the cervical spinal fusion surgery on Van in 2009. Dr. Scott testified that it is normal for people to develop spinal degeneration as they age, and smoking is a risk factor. Van, who was fifty-six years old at the time of the accident, was a life-long smoker. Such degenerative changes can exist without accompanying pain or symptoms, but trauma from an accident can trigger symptoms. Dr. Scott was aware that Van was in an automobile accident in 1998, in which he sustained abdominal injuries and, in the following month, complained of back and neck pain. However, there were no medical records indicating that Van had neck problems for the six years prior to the October 2007 accident at issue. In Dr. Scott's opinion, it was the October 2007 accident that caused Van's current neck problems and his need for surgery. While the likelihood of a serious injury increases with the violence of an automobile accident, Dr. Scott could not say with any certainty that a low-speed accident cannot cause a neurological injury or that a high-speed accident is necessarily going to cause one.

Although Dr. Scott stated that Van did not disclose degenerative arthritis or prior surgeries on the patient intake form, Dr. Scott explained that the intake form can be overwhelming and that patients sometimes forget to include things. Finally, Dr. Scott stated that he had instructed Van that he did not need to wear a surgical collar, which Van wore during one of the days of trial. However, Dr. Scott testified that people sometimes end up wearing a collar for external support because of muscle atrophy and explained that Van has significant muscle atrophy at the surgical site and still uses the collar for comfort.

The defense presented Dr. Trimble as an expert witness. Dr. Trimble testified that he saw Van for a compulsory medical examination about four months after Van's 2009 cervical spinal fusion surgery. On the MRIs and x-rays, Dr. Trimble observed degeneration, which is a long-standing wear and tear that does not happen quickly but rather over the course of years. The amount of degeneration was more than Dr. Trimble would expect for a man of Van's age, but that...