PATRICIA ROGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTOINETTE L. MORINI AND QUINTO MORINI, ET AL., APPELLEE
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 verdict awarding future economic damages for medical expenses is not inconsistent with a denial of future noneconomic damages.
Plaintiff sued for injuries from an auto accident. The jury awarded past and future medical expenses but no noneconomic damages and found no permanent…
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 Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Patricia Rogers sued Antoinette and Quin-to Morini seeking damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. A jury found that Antoinette Morini’s negligence caused the accident and awarded Rogers damages for past and future medical expenses. However, the jury did not award noneconomic damages and found that Rogers was not permanently injured. Rogers appeals arguing that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent and not supported by the evidence. We affirm.
Rogers argued the verdict was inconsistent because the jury found that she was entitled to receive future medical expenses to compensate her for the cost of neurologic followup evaluations, but that she was not entitled to receive future noneconomic damages. However, in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla.1998), our supreme court held that an award of future economic damages for medical expenses does not require an award of future noneconomic damages. Therefore, the verdict was not inconsistent.
Rogers also argued the jury’s finding of no permanent injury was not supported by the evidence because the Morirás did not present expert medical testimony to contradict Rogers’ expert medical testimony that she suffered permanent injury in the accident. A defendant in a personal injury action is not required to present expert testimony to contradict the claimant’s expert testimony of permanent injury. See Weygant v. Fort Myers Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 640 So. 2d 1092, 1093 (Fla.1994). The record reveals that the Morinis discredited Rogers’ evidence that she was permanently injured; therefore, the jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tenny v. Allen, 858 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…that a defendant in a personal injury action is not required to present expert testimony to contradict the plaintiffs expert testimony concerning permanent injuries. McCown v. Estate of Seidell, 831 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Rogers v. Morini, 714 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Regardless of the absence of testimony by an opposing expert witness, the issue of whether a plaintiff has sustained a permanent injury is generally one for the jury. Wright v. Ring Power Corp., 834 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA), re…
-
McCOWN v. Est. OF Edna E. Seidell, 831 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ry’s finding of no permanent injury was not supported by the evidence because the defendant did not present expert medical testimony to contradict McCown’s expert medical testimony that he suffered permanent injuries. As we held in Rogers v. Morini, 714 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a defendant in a personal injury action is not required to present expert testimony to contradict the claimant’s expert testimony of permanent injuries. See also Weygant v. Fort Myers Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 640 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.…
-
Darryle T. Cook v. State, 768 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Cook v. State, 714 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its decision in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have juris…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998)
- Millie Weygant v. Fort Myers Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 640 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1994)