AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY AND JEFFREY ROBERTS, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
DEBORAH L. CLARK AND DONALD CLARK, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 court held that the trial court erred in denying remittitur for future medical expenses and in allowing testimony regarding a treatment session after the discovery deadline. The court also clarified that the reversal and remand were for a new trial on damages only.
The trial court denied remittitur for future medical expenses and allowed a neurosurgeon to testify about a treatment session occurring after the disc…
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 Permanent Impairment Rating cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Chief Judge.
We find that the trial court erred in denying remittitur as to future medical expenses. The evidence and testimony regarding reasonably certain future medical expenses did not support an award of such magnitude. See White v. Westlund, 624 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The amount of the award lies outside the reasonable range within which the jury could properly operate. Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs, 349 So. 2d 622, 627 (Fla.1976).
More importantly, it was error to permit plaintiffs neurosurgeon to give testimony regarding a treatment session which occurred after the discovery deadline in the suit, and to formulate a permanent impairment rating on the witness stand when he had not rated plaintiffs impairment when deposed. Grau v. Branham, 626 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Colonnell v. Mitchels, 317 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Lastly, we point out that section 55.03(1), Florida Statutes (1993), requires that a judgment bear interest.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur. ON MOTION FOB CLARIFICATION
Appellees’ motion for clarification of this court’s opinion of April 10, 1996, is granted, and we clarify the opinion as follows. The intent of this court was to reverse and remand for a new trial on damages only.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL OF DAMAGES ONLY.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fayed v. Altshuler, 676 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…red. We are not persuaded by the former husband’s argument. Unlike a request for attorney’s fees,1 nothing in the statute or case law requires any specific pleading by a movant for statutory interest. Recently, in Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Clark, 676 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court commented as follows: “Lastly, we point out that section 55.03(1), Florida Statutes (1993), requires that a judgment bear interest.” In Leenen v. Ruttgers Ocean Beach Lodge, Ltd., 662 F.Supp. 240, 242 (S.D.Fla.1987…
-
Krysiak v. Shellyann Dawson & H & J Contracting, Inc., 301 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Vazquez, 260 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ding so as to ‘render surprise at the trial a practical impossibility.’” Semmer v. Johnson, 634 So. 2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Trial courts should not admit evidence obtained after the discovery deadline. See Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Clark, 676 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. J.B., 675 So. 2d 241, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Colonnell v. Mitchels, 317 So. 2d 799, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Furthermore, trial counsel has a reasonable expectation that discovery ceases…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lassitter v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1976)
- Gerard D. Grau, M.D. v. Branham, 626 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- White v. Westlund, 624 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Colonnell v. Mitchels, 317 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)