BROWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ AND GRETCHEN SCHWARTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF JAMES SCHWARTZ, A MINOR, 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.
A jury awarded parents of a child injured in a college library accident $60,000 in future medical expenses (present value $30,000). The appellate court reversed, holding that the medical evidence was insufficient to support an award exceeding $300, as the treating physicians could not testify with reasonable certainty about future medical needs.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for remittitur. Only medical expenses reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are recoverable, and the evidence supported an award for only the $300 electrocauterization procedure, not the additional $59,700 in future medical expenses.
[1] Future medical expenses are recoverable only if they are reasonably certain to be incurred.
[2] A jury award for future medical expenses is not supported by evidence if the evidence does not allow for a determination of the amount with reasonable certainty.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Only medical expenses which are reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are recoverable.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for awarding future medical expenses in personal injury cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Schwartz, age thirteen, was injured when he walked through a clear plate glass window in Broward Community College's library building. Two treat…
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 Reasonable Certainty In Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge.
Appellees, parents of thirteen year old James Schwartz, recovered a money judgment against appellant, Broward Community College, to compensate for the severe personal injuries sustained by James as a result of his walking through a clear plate glass window in appellant’s library building. The sole issue here is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for remittitur as to that portion of the itemized jury verdict awarding damages for future medical expense. We hold that it did and reverse.
The verdict included itemized amounts for the several elements of appellees’ damages. Among those was the amount of $60,000 for future medical expense to be incurred over the ensuing seven years, the present value of which was set at $30,000.
The only evidence of future medical expenses for James came from the pretrial deposition testimony of his two treating physicians. One, a Dr. Shampain (who had not seen James during the year preceding his deposition), opined that there was a present need for electrocauterization, the estimated cost of which was $300, and that probably dermabrasion would be needed in the future, the cost of which was not stated. This witness admitted on cross examination that until he had had a chance to examine James again, his opinion concerning need for future treatment would be speculative to some extent. The other, a Dr. Wald, (who had last seen James three months before his deposition), testified that he could not give an opinion within reasonable medical probability as to whether James would need any additional medical treatment without first reevaluating him. For that reason Dr. Wald did not feel that he could give an opinion as to what the future medical expense would be. Only medical expenses which are reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are recoverable. Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1953).
While the evidence in this case could furnish a basis from which the jury could infer the need for some limited future medical treatment, it does not provide a basis upon which the jury could, with reasonable certainty, determine the amount of medical expense James would be likely to incur in the future other than the estimated $300 charge for the electrocauterization procedure. See, DeAlmeida v. Graham, 524 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, Reid v. Graham, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987).
We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s award for future medical expenses in excess of $300.
We reverse the final judgment and the order denying appellant’s motion for remit-titur, and direct that upon remand the trial court shall order a remittitur consistent with the opinion of this court.
Reversed and remanded.
DELL, J., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock, 640 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…which are reasonably certain to be incurred in the future are recoverable. There must also be an evidentiary basis upon which the jury can, with reasonable certainty, determine the amount of those expenses. See Broward Community College v. Schwartz, 616 So. 2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We also feel some comment is warranted in regard to the issue raised by the appellant that the jury, in disregard of the trial court’s instruction, failed to reduce the future damages awarded in this case to their present…
-
Aircraft Serv. Int'l, Inc. v. Jackson, 768 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.” § 768.043(2)(e), Fla.Stat. (1993); see W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Pyke, 661 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Broward Community College v. Schwartz, 616 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Dyes v. Spick, 606 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); K.C. v. A.P., 577 So. 2d at 669; Gup v. Cook, 549 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), approved in part, quashed in part, 585 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1991). Consequently, we reverse and re…
-
Scot L. Hamilton v. Melbourne Sand Transp., Inc., 687 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…was based upon speculation and was legally insufficient. Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1953); Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock, 640 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 649 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1994); Broward Community College v. Schwartz, 616 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). MST stresses that no physician testified that it was probable that Hamilton would need future medical care for his injuries, and its expert testified that Hamilton would not need future medical care. Further, Hamilton presented…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953)
- Mauricio J. DeALMEIDA, M.D. v. Graham, 524 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)