CLIFFORD JASON GREGORY
v.
KEY WEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC., ET AL.,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed most of a trial court's final judgment but reversed a portion concerning a collateral source set-off. The court found no error in excluding an insurance adjuster's report or denying a request to recall a witness, but remanded for correction of a specific pharmacy payment amount.
The trial court did not err in excluding the insurance adjuster's report as protected work product and did not abuse its discretion in denying the request to recall the witness. However, the trial court did err in excluding a specific pharmacy payment from the collateral source set-off calculation.
“Courts should exercise their discretion to avoid the needless waste of time through unnecessary presentation of cumulative evidence.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the denial of the request to recall the witness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClifford Jason Gregory appealed a final judgment after a trial, arguing the court made several errors. Key issues involved the exclusion of an insuran…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rebuttal Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
EMAS, C.J.
Clifford Jason Gregory appeals final judgment entered by the trial court following a trial, asserting the court made several errors which require a new trial. Upon review, and with one exception described below, we affirm the final judgment.
First, we find no error in the trial court’s exclusion of the insurance adjuster’s report, as it was protected work product and Gregory failed to establish an applicable exception to the prohibition against the use of such materials at trial. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4); Int’l House of Pancakes (IHOP) v. Robinson, 124 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). In addition, we agree with the trial court’s determination that there was no waiver of the work product privilege in this case. See Abamar Hous. & Dev., Inc. v. Lisa Daly Lady Décor, Inc., 698 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to deny Gregory’s request to be recalled to the witness stand as a rebuttal witness. See Gutierrez v. Vargas, 239 So. 3d 615, 625 (Fla. 2018) (holding: “Courts should exercise their discretion to avoid the needless waste of time through unnecessary presentation of cumulative evidence.”)
Finally, we affirm the trial court’s order granting a collateral source set-off, with the exception of the $555.80 paid by Gregory to Sweet Bay Pharmacy, which was erroneously excluded by the trial court. The undisputed post-judgment evidence presented to the trial court established Gregory’s payment of the Sweet Bay Pharmacy bill in this amount, and thus, the trial court should have included that figure in its calculation of the amounts to be awarded in the final judgment. On remand, the final judgment should be amended to include that amount, reduced by the corresponding comparative negligence as determined by the jury’s verdict.
We affirm without discussion of the other points raised by Gregory in this appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abamar Hous. & Dev., Inc. v. Lisa Daly Lady Decor, Inc., 698 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Gutierrez v. Jose Luis Vargas, M.D., 239 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 2018)
- Int'l House OF Pancakes (Ihop) v. Robinson, 124 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)