White v. Westlund
Decision Date | 15 September 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-2314,92-2314 |
Citation | 624 So.2d 1148 |
Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2010 Jeffrey James WHITE, Appellant, v. George WESTLUND and Delores Westlund, his wife, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael B. Davis of Paxton, Crow, Bragg, Smith & Keyser P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Dewey H. Varner and Allen R. Seaman of Varner Stafford Cole & Seaman, Lake Worth, for appellees.
Jeffrey James White, the defendant in the trial court, appeals a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of George and Delores Westlund arising out of an automobile accident. We affirm.
White contends the trial court erroneously allowed expert testimony regarding the need for the following future operative procedures that may be required by George Westlund: (1) ankle fusion; (2) knee replacement; and (3) leg amputation. White maintains such testimony should have been stricken because it was not expressed in terms of a reasonable certainty.
Specifically, White takes the position that, unless an expert can testify that the need for a future operative procedure is reasonably certain, that testimony is inadmissible. In support, White cites a line of decisions holding that expert testimony which is couched in terms of a "possibility" that the plaintiff will need future surgery should not have been admitted at trial because such testimony is speculative and therefore not probative of future damages. See Gup v. Cook, 549 So.2d 1081, 1084-85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (, )quashed on other grounds, 585 So.2d 926 (Fla.1991); 3-M Corp.-McGhan Medical Reports Div. v. Brown, 475 So.2d 994, 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) ( ); Crosby v. Fleming & Sons, Inc., 447 So.2d 347, 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) ( ). In response, the Westlunds contend there is no requirement that each opinion on future medical procedures be expressed in terms of "reasonable medical certainty."
Long ago, our supreme court established that only those future medical expenses "reasonably certain" to be incurred are recoverable as damages in a personal injury action. Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185, 188 (Fla.1953). This standard is reflected in Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) 6.1(a) and 6.2(c). 1 From this, it follows that a recovery of future medical expenses cannot be grounded on the mere "possibility" that certain treatment "might" be obtained in the future. See 2 Damages in Tort Actions Sec. 9.55, at 9-45 (1986).
As noted above, several decisions out of the first district lean toward the view that testimony from an expert that future surgery is "possible" or "might" be required is inadmissible because it is merely speculation and thus not probative of future damages. Gup; 3-M Corp.; Crosby. However, a close examination of those cases indicates that the court's primary concern was that there was no other evidence from which a jury could infer that the need for such procedure was reasonably certain.
Other Florida courts, including the supreme court and this court, have held generally that, where there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer a need for future medical treatment with reasonable certainty, an award of future medical expenses In Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 340 So.2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) the third district rejected a contention that, in order to be admissible, medical testimony concerning the need for future operative procedures must be shown within a reasonable medical certainty. The court upheld the admission of testimony by two doctors concerning possible future surgery on the grounds that, although the probative value of such evidence is not great, it should still go to the jury to aid in placing a dollar figure on the plaintiff's condition. See also A Quest for Reasonable Medical Certainty in Florida, 30 Fla.B.J. 327 ) .
is proper. See Sullivan v. Price, 386 So.2d 241, 244 (Fla.1980) ( ); Chess v. Wright, 602 So.2d 673, 673-74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ( ); DeAlmeida v. Graham, 524 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA) (, )rev. denied, 519 So.2d 988 (Fla.1987); National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Holland, 269 So.2d 407, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (, )rev. denied, 273 So.2d 768 (Fla.1973).
Implicit in the authorities recited above is the view that whatever qualification is placed on the opinion by the expert (i.e., surgery is possible or likely) goes to the weight of the opinion, and not its admissibility. Therefore, we agree that a medical expert may testify that future medical procedures are "possible" or "likely," and need not phrase an opinion in terms of such surgery or treatment being "reasonably necessary." See Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc.. Consistent with instructions 6.1(a) and 6.2(c), whether the plaintiff has satisfied his burden of proving that such future operative procedures are reasonably necessary is an issue for the jury to decide so long as there is competent evidence upon which the issue may be submitted to the jury. Therefore, we find no error here in the admission of the evidence in question.
Next, White seeks reversal on the grounds that the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the accident that caused Mr. Westlund's injuries; in particular, he cites evidence that he was driving in reverse, at a high rate of speed, in a residential neighborhood, when he struck Westlund. He claims that, because he admitted liability, this evidence was logically irrelevant and highly prejudicial. 2
Whether evidence is logically relevant is controlled by section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1991), which states, "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." All relevant evidence is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or unless otherwise excluded by law. Secs. 90.402, 90.403. Moreover, trial courts exercise broad discretion in matters relating to the admissibility of relevant evidence, and where a court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before In most instances, evidence describing the details of an accident is logically relevant and admissible, even where liability has been admitted, to place the extent of injuries suffered by the plaintiff, as well as the degree of pain endured, in the proper context. But because trial judges are bound to apply the rules of admissibility set forth above, the extent of information that may be received in evidence will vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. Here, Westlund testified he has nightmares about the accident once a week, in which he "could see the car coming at [him]," and he testified he is now terrified of driving or even riding as a passenger in a car. Since Westlund's claim for damages for mental anguish rests at least in part on his recurring nightmares about the accident, the bizarre nature of how that accident occurred--being struck by an automobile driven in reverse at a high rate of speed--was relevant to prove, and probative of, the degree of his suffering and damages. The trial court carefully weighed these considerations, and we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown in admitting this testimony.
reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, that ruling will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. Trees v. K-Mart Corp., 467 So.2d 401, 403 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 479 So.2d 119 (Fla.1985).
Finally, appellant challenges the trial court's refusal to award a setoff for future disability (collateral source) benefits against the jury's verdict. He claims he was entitled to such a setoff pursuant to section 768.76, Florida Statutes (1987). Appellees respond in the alternative that: (1) section 627.7372, Florida Statutes, not section 768.76, governs the admissibility of collateral sources in automobile accident cases; and (2) even if section 768.76 is the proper section, that section does not provide for a setoff for future collateral source benefits.
Section 768.76(1) provides:
In any action to which this part applies in which liability is admitted or is determined by the trier of fact and in which damages are awarded to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FLORIDA DOT v. Armadillo Partners, Inc.
...domain proceeding, instead the differences went to the amount of weight to be afforded by the jury); see also White v. Westlund, 624 So.2d 1148, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that qualifications placed on a medical expert's opinion are matters of weight, not admissibility); Lombard v. E......
-
Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc.
...the extent of injuries suffered by the plaintiff, as well as the degree of pain endured, in the proper context." White v. Westlund, 624 So.2d 1148, 1152 (Fla.Ct.App.1993). The admissibility of such evidence in a wrongful death action brought by a survivor of the decedent is not as clear. Da......
-
Joerg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...against an award for damages, future collateral benefits are notsubject to setoff. 761 So.2d at 292–93; see also White v. Westlund,624 So.2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(“Florida courts ... have implicitly, if not expressly, held that future earned disability benefits cannot be set off fr......
-
Altidor v. Carnival Corp.
...the expert (i.e., surgery is possible or likely) goes to the weight of the opinion, and not its admissibility." White v. Westlund , 624 So. 2d 1148, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). A doctor is not required to use the phrase "reasonably necessary" to permit her testimony. Id. at 1151. ("[A] medica......
-
Emergencies and case management conference
...to impart to the court is admissible, subject to the weight the court, in its discretion, gives to the evidence. [ White v. West-lund, 624 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (trial courts exercise broad discretion in matters relating to admissibility of relevant evidence).] Choose to proffer y......
-
Trial and evidence
...appellate court cannot determine whether this error was reversible, because appellants made no proffer of evidence); White v. Westlund, 624 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (trial courts exercise broad discretion in matters relating to admissibility of relevant evidence); Oshea v. Oshea, 585......
-
Motor vehicle accident and other personal injury cases
...preferred method to establish future medical costs is through expert medical testimony, but that is not required. [ White v. Westlund , 624 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).] The reasonable value of future medical care may be established by evidence of the reasonable value of past medical tr......
-
$______ VERDICT - INSURANCE OBLIGATION - UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CLAIM - PLAINTIFF STANDING IN BED OF PARKED PICKUP TRUCK WHEN VEHICLE STRUCK BY UNDERINSURED MOTORIST - PLAINTIFF MAKES CLAIM FOR PERMANENT INJURY AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURER - LUMBAR AND CERVICAL DISC INJURIES AND RIGHT SHOULDER INJURY - DISCECTOMY AND DISC REPLACEMENT AT C5-6 AND C6-7.
...a need for future medical treatment with reasonable certainty, an award of future medical expenses is proper, citing White v. Westlund, 624 So. 2d 1148, 1150 citing Sullivan v. Price, 386 So.2d 241, 244 (Fla. 1980). The plaintiff maintained that the defendant did not challenge the jury’s fi......