SINECIO LEAL, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
WATERPROOFING SYSTEMS OF MIAMI, INC., 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.
Leal appealed an adverse jury verdict in a personal injury case arising from a 1996 automobile accident. The court affirmed the jury's finding that Leal's neck and ankle injuries were not caused by the accident, but reversed and remanded regarding recovery for diagnostic bills, which Leal was entitled to recover as a matter of law.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion for directed verdict on causation, finding sufficient evidence that Leal's neck injuries preexisted the accident. However, the court reversed on the issue of diagnostic bills, holding that Leal was entitled to recover for medical expenses incurred for reasonably necessary diagnostic testing to determine causation.
[1] A plaintiff must prove some connection between claimed damages and a defendant's tortious conduct, even when liability is admitted.
[2] A jury may find that a plaintiff's claimed injuries preexisted an accident if sufficient evidence supports that conclusion.
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“Even with causation not at issue, plaintiff was still obligated to prove some connexity between the damages claimed and the [defendant's tortious conduct].”
Establishes the burden on plaintiff to prove causal nexus between injuries and defendant's conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSinecio Leal sued Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. for neck and ankle injuries allegedly sustained in a 1996 automobile accident. Waterproofing ad…
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 Causation Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sinecio Leal, the plaintiff below, appeals from an adverse final judgment in a personal injury action. Leal sued Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. (“Waterproofing”) for neck and ankle injuries allegedly sustained in a 1996 automobile accident. Waterproofing admitted liability and a jury rendered a defense verdict finding that Leal’s claimed damages were not caused by the accident. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Leal’s motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether Leal’s claimed injuries were caused by the accident. See Sparks-Book v. The Sports Authority, Inc., 699 So. 2d 767, 768 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“ ‘Even with causation not at issue, plaintiff was still obligated to prove some connexity between the damages claimed and the [defendant’s tortious conduct].’ ” (quoting Rucker v. Garlock, Inc., 672 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996))). There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Leal’s neck injuries preexisted the accident. See Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1993); Katz v. Ghodsi, 682 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
However, we agree with Leal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the issue of recovery for diagnostic bills. See Sparks-Book v. The Sports Authority, Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“At a minimum, the plaintiff was entitled to recover for those medical expenses incurred for any diagnostic testing which was reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident caused her injuries”); Martin v. Chapman, 780 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We find no merit in Leal’s remaining points on appeal. See Katz, 682 So. 2d at 587 (holding that plaintiffs motion for a new trial should have been denied because “it was solely for the jury to resolve these conflicts and consider the weight of the disputed testimony”); Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla.1993) (holding that where the plaintiff gave a materially untruthful medical history to the doctors, the jury was justified in disregarding the medical expert’s opinion testimony).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ies, there was no basis for the jury to decline to award her at least the costs of those medical diagnostic tests deemed reasonably necessary to determine whether the accident, in fact, caused her injuries. Leal v. Waterproofing Sys. of Miami, Inc., 812 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(even where there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that plaintiffs neck injuries pre-existed the accident, the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the issue of recovery for diagnostic bills);…
-
Icmfg & Assocs., Inc. v. The Bare Bd. Grp., Inc., 238 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…0 ("The right to contest unliquidated damages in any negligence action encompasses the right to challenge the causal relationship between the damages claimed and the liability established by the default."); Leal v. Waterproofing Sys. of Miami, Inc., 812 So. 2d 473, 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that a defendant against whom a directed verdict on liability had been entered had the right to contest the issue of recovery for diagnostic bills). [*336] The requirement to show some "connexity" between the defenda…
Authorities Cited
- Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1993)
- Sparks-Book v. The Sports Auth., Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Rucker v. Garlock, Inc., 672 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Martin v. Chapman, 780 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Harris Katz and Robert Katz v. Medhi Ghodsi and Valeria Ghodsi, 682 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)