BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND LESTER MARCUM, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD T. APEL, 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.
In this personal injury appeal, the court upheld a $57,000 verdict for the plaintiff, affirming the admissibility of a psychologist's expert testimony regarding post-traumatic syndrome despite the defendant's challenge that the opinion was based partly on plaintiff's history rather than direct medical examination.
The court affirmed the verdict, holding that even if the psychologist's testimony was improperly admitted, it was harmless error because substantial, proper evidence from the treating physician's testimony supported the jury's verdict.
[1] A psychologist's diagnostic opinion, partly based on history obtained from the patient, may be admissible when presented in response to hypothetical questions that provid…
[2] The credibility of expert testimony, including potential bias or inconsistencies, is a matter for the trier of fact, not the appellate court.
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“An examination of the record indicates the doctor ventured his diagnostic opinion at least five times during direct examination. Two such answers were in response to hypothetical questions posed by Plaintiff's counsel.”
Establishes that the psychologist's opinion was properly elicited through hypothetical questions, which provided appropriate foundational data.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was injured in an accident and developed post-traumatic syndrome with anxiety and somatic concern. Dr. Hill, a psychologist who was not …
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 Hypothetical Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a $57,000.00 verdict rendered in favor of the Appellee-Plaintiff. The Appellants-Defendants contend the lower court erred in permitting the jury to consider a psychologist’s opinion relating to the Plaintiff’s injuries. Under the circumstances we disagree and affirm.
The psychologist, a Dr. Hill, testified the Plaintiff developed a post-traumatic syndrome with anxiety and somatic concern as a result of the accident in question. When cross-examination revealed that the witness, who was not a treating physician, partly relied upon history obtained from the Plaintiff in giving his diagnostic opinion 1, the Defendant moved to strike the opinion.
An examination of the record indicates the doctor ventured his diagnostic opinion at least five times during direct examination. Two such answers were in response to hypothetical questions 2 posed by Plaintiff’s counsel. Since the doctor had been instructed by the court that he was not to testify concerning what the patient said to him, there is every indication that the hypothetical questions properly provided him with the same data, for the purpose of expressing an opinion, as the Plaintiff had previously supplied during the original interview in the doctor’s office. The psychologist’s opinion was also the subject of extensive and detailed cross-examination and it is difficult to find reversible error in the court’s ruling. However, even if Dr. Hill’s testimony was improperly permitted to go to the jury, it was substantially the same as the expert testimony of the Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Mackenzie, concerning the nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries and, therefore, the jury’s verdict was not dependent upon Dr. Hill’s diagnosis.
If improper evidence is admitted, the error is harmless where, as here, there is ample, proper evidence to support the verdict.3 The Defendants, in their brief, strenuously contend that Dr. Mackenzie’s testimony was not worthy of belief because of his animosity toward defense counsel demonstrated during cross-examination, material changes between the doctor’s testimony at trial and that given on pretrial depositions, his relationship with Plaintiff and with Plaintiff’s counsel, and his record of difficulties with local medical societies.
We agree that each such matter could affect the believability of Dr. Mackenzie’s testimony — but such is a consideration for the trier of fact (the jury in the instant action) and not for the appellate court. We have examined the record and find sufficient competent evidence to support *136the judgment on appeal. No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is
Affirmed.
OWEN, J., and McCAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. Surette, 394 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ustify the jury in reaching the conclusion supported by the opinion of the expert. Hughes v. Canal Insurance Company, 308 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Hill, 250 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Brevard County v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) and Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). IV. The appellants’ final point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict because: (1) The evidence was insuf…
-
Madison v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 648 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…r, if any, in directing a verdict in count six of the complaint was entirely harmless. See Sudderth v. Ebasco Servs., Inc., 510 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Rodriguez v. Huguet, 332 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Brevard County v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134, 135-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Finally, we conclude that the trial court did not commit error in its award of taxable costs to the plaintiff insured for travel expenses incurred by plaintiff insured’s counsel in taking certain out-of-state deposition…
-
Alberger v. Harvison, 342 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…judicial nature of said error. Strate v. Strate, 328 So. 2d 29 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). There was ample proper evidence regarding appellee’s injuries to support the verdict, rendering the admission of said testimony harmless error. Brevard County v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). The other points raised by appellants have been examined and are deemed to be without merit. We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, an…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ervin Baker v. State, 132 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Marshall v. Papineau, 132 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- In re McCLANAHAN, 99 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Smith v. Biscayne Park Ests., 42 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1949)
- Williamson Candy Co. v. Hommie Lee Lewis, 144 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)