PENNY HITCHCOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA MAHAFFEY, 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.
Penny Hitchcock appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to Patricia Mahaffey for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by Hitchcock's negligent driving. The Florida appellate court affirmed the judgment on all issues except the award of $250,000 for future economic damages, which it reversed for lack of competent substantial evidence.
The court affirmed the judgment on all issues except the award of future economic damages. The court reversed the $250,000 future economic damages award because Florida law requires that future medical expenses be 'reasonably certain' to be incurred and must be supported by competent substantial evidence, which cannot be established merely by the amount of past medical expenses incurred.
[1] Recovery of future medical expenses in Florida is restricted to those expenses reasonably certain to be incurred.
[2] A plaintiff bears the burden to establish, through competent, substantial evidence, that future medical expenses will more probably than not be incurred.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Florida law restricts recovery of future medical expenses to those expenses 'reasonably certain' to be incurred.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding future medical damages in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia Mahaffey was seriously injured when struck by a motor vehicle negligently operated by Penny Hitchcock. A jury awarded Mahaffey significant da…
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 Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
Penny Hitchcock appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Patricia Mahaffey following a jury verdict. Mahaffey was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle that was being negligently operated by Hitchcock. The jury awarded Mahaffey significant sums of money for certain intangible damages and for "medical expenses, household goods or services, or other economic losses,"1 both in the past and in the future. We affirm, without further discussion, on all but one of the several issues that Hitchcock raised. We do, however, agree with Hitchcock that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial or remittitur regarding the award of $250,000 for future economic damages and reverse on this issue.
"Florida law restricts recovery of future medical expenses to those expenses 'reasonably certain' to be incurred." Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Babin , 204 So.3d 561, 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Volusia Cty. v. Joynt , 179 So.3d 448, 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ). As plaintiff, Mahaffey had the burden at trial "to establish, through competent, substantial evidence, that [her] future medical expenses will more probably than not be incurred." Id. (quoting Joynt , 179 So.3d at 452 ). Here, other than the sum of $5365 for future surgery, which Hitchcock does not contest, the award for the balance of the future economic damages is based on Mahaffey's testimony as to the amount that she has paid for her past medical expenses and for past household goods and services subsequent to the motor vehicle accident. However, "the amount of past medical expenses incurred does not-at least by itself-provide a reasonable basis for a jury to compute future medical expenses." Id. (quoting Joynt , 179 So.3d at 452 ).
Accordingly, based upon the lack of competent substantial evidence, we reverse the jury award and that part of the final judgment for damages for the future loss of "medical expenses, household goods or services or other economic losses." We remand for the trial court to either enter a remittitur under *461section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2013), in the amount of $5365 or, if the parties cannot agree to the remittitur, to grant a new trial solely on the issue of the loss of these future economic damages. See Truelove v. Blount , 954 So.2d 1284, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). As to all other matters, we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- D'Andre Combs v. State, 954 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Joynt, 179 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Auto Club Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Babin, 204 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)