LYNNE IRWIN AND JOHN AVAKIAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALICE BLAKE AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's discretionary ruling on expert testimony but reversed the exclusion of arguments regarding reasonableness of medical bills, holding that juries must decide whether medical expenses are reasonable and necessary.
A trial court errs in barring defendants from arguing to the jury that a plaintiff's medical bills were not reasonable and necessary, as this is a question for the jury to decide under proper instructions.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by barring defendants from arguing to the jury that a plaintiff's medical bills are not reasonable and necessary, as the reasonablenes…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a question for a jury to decide, under proper instructions, whether these bills represented reasonable and necessary medical expenses”
Court citing Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co. to establish that reasonableness of medical bills is a jury question, not a matter of law
Lynne Irwin and John Avakian were defendants in a trial court case involving medical bills claimed by the opposing party, Alice Blake, with Allstate I…
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 Reasonableness Of Medical Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lynne Irwin and John Avakian, defendants in the trial court, appeal a final judgment. We affirm in part, but reverse in part and remand for new trial on the sole issue of medical bills.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to wait for appellants’ expert to appear and in ordering the expert’s deposition to be read into evidence as a substitute for his testimony.
However, we conclude the trial court did err in barring appellants from arguing to the jury that appellee’s medical bills were not reasonable and necessary. When a plaintiff testifies as to the amount of his or her medical bills and introduces such bills into evidence, it becomes “a question for a jury to decide, under proper instructions, whether these bills represented reasonable and necessary medical expenses.” Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., 336 So. 2d 566, 571 (Fla.1976). Although some jurisdictions consider evidence of the amount of a medical bill to be sufficient proof of reasonableness, many, including Florida, require something more. Albertson’s Inc. v. Brady, 475 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla.2d DCA), rev. denied, 486 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1985).
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur. POLEN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
POLEN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I agree with the results reflected by the majority opinion, there is an additional point not addressed by the majority upon which I must dissent. The majority concludes there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s failure to wait beyond the hour or so already allowed for appellants’ expert to appear. Our opinion reflects the trial court properly ordered the expert’s deposition to be read into evidence. I agree.
Where I disagree, however, is with the trial court’s handling of appellants’ counsel’s request to proffer the expert’s testimony when the expert finally appeared the next morning of the trial. Although there are few absolutes in jurisprudence, it is my view that it is almost always error to refuse such a proffer (out of the hearing of the jury, of course). How else can we as a reviewing authority determine possible prejudice except by reviewing such proffered testimony or evidence to determine the possible effect of its exclusion on the outcome of the cause?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…w is the recognition that a factfinder may properly consider a medical bill with a minimal evidentiary foundation — that the witness received the bill for medical services related to the injury which is the subject of the litigation. Irwin v. Blake, 589 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); East West Karate Ass’n, Inc. v. Riquelme, 638 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Easton v. Bradford, 390 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980); Polaco v. Smith, 376 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1980);…
-
SUN Bank/South Fla., N.A. v. Baker, 632 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…e which, by law, cannot be charged to the employee or to the employer/earrier. The issue to be decided by the fact-finder is the reasonableness of the fee schedule charge. Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., 336 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1976); Irwin v. Blake, 589 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).9 Absent a different pronouncement from the legislature, we believe that section 440.13(3) should be narrowly construed. For example, under that section, a health care provider could receive payments from a third party who is li…
-
Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. P'ship v. Hasson, 33 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…nts a lower fee for the same medical services. A claimant for damages for bodily injuries has the burden of proving the reasonableness of his or her medical expenses. E.W. Karate Ass’n v. Riquelme, 638 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Irwin v. Blake, 589 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (citing Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., 336 So. 2d 566, 571 (Fla.1976)); A.J. v. State, 677 So. 2d 935, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“The patient’s obligation is not to pay whatever the provider demands, but only a reasonable…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., Inc., 336 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1976)
- Albertson's, Inc. v. Brady, 475 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)