UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
COUNTY LINE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER DONNA LEE SPIKE-H
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.
United Automobile Insurance Company appealed from a final judgment and directed verdict in a personal injury protection case, challenging the trial court's exclusion of an expert medical witness and a ruling on a motion in limine regarding medical bills. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion in striking the expert witness due to noncompliance with a subpoena duces tecum served with unreasonable notice.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion in limine regarding pre-May 2, 2007 medical bills. However, the trial court abused its discretion in striking the expert medical witness because the subpoena duces tecum was served with unreasonable notice (two days before trial) and the non-parties' medical documents were not subject to production for collateral impeachment purposes without proper notice under Florida Statutes § 456.057(1).
[1] Orders granting a motion in limine and striking an expert witness are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a motion in limine to exclude evidence of medical bills incurred prior to a specified date.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the trial court abused its discretion in striking the expert medical witness, the sole opposing witness at trial, for noncompliance with the subpoena duces recurs”
Establishes the core holding that striking the only defense witness was an abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis personal injury protection case involved a dispute over medical bills and testimony. The trial court granted an amended motion in limine prohibit…
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.
Appcllcc. Before TUNIS, SANCHEZ-LLORENS and HIRSCH, J1.
PER CURIAM.
[*2] ' ()8-2t)-"|4’15;8’l FROtrl- T—427 P0008/0004 F688 This matter involves an appeal from a final judgment and directed verdict, an order striking an expert medical witness, and an order granting an amended motion in iirnine in a personal injury protection case. Both the order granting an amended motion in lirnine and the order striking an expert medical witness are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 945 (Fla. 1983); SourceTrack, LLC v. Ariba, Inc., 958 So. 2d 523, 526 (Fla, 2d. DCA 2007); Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954, 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). This Appellate Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the amended motion in limine prohibiting, in pelt, any testimony or evidence regarding the medical bills that occurred prior to May 2, 2007. ' However, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the expert medical witness, the sole opposing witness at trial, for noncompliance with the subpoena duces recurs. Prccedurally, the subpoena duces tecum served for voluminous non-parties’ medical documents and the expert’s financial documents two days prior to trial constituted unreasonable notice. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(0); l.280(b)(5). Funher, we find that the non-parties’ medical documents subpoenaed were not subject to production for collateral impeachment purposes absent compliance with section 456.0570), Florida Statutes requiring notice to non-parties. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calla-ry, 66 So. 3d 315, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Crowley v. Lamming, 66 So. 3d 355, 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Graham v. Dacher‘-kh, 991 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); United Auto. Ins. C0. v. Advanced Chiro. & Med. Cir. Corp, a/a/0 Elsie Mitchell, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 233a (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Feb. 4, 2009). Wherefore, the final judgment and the directed verdict are REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Appellee County Line Chiropractic Center‘s motion for attorney’ s fees pursuant to section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2008) is denied. [*3] 08-203’?-4 15:3’! FROM— P42? P6004/0034 F-588 (TUNIS, SANCHEZ-LLORENS and HIRSCH, JJ. concur.)
COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Sourcetrack, LLC v. Ariba, Inc., 958 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Graham v. Dacheikh, 991 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)