ERIC PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
GREEN MARTIN, JR. AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the trial judge erred in withdrawing a physician's bill from the jury's consideration because the physician was a treating physician.
Plaintiff sued the County for injuries sustained on a bus. A physician's bill was admitted into evidence but later withdrawn by the judge. The jury aw…
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 Examining Physician cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of a final judgment awarding him $250 in this negligence action.
Plaintiff, Eric Parker, sued the County after sustaining injuries while a passenger on an MTA bus. At trial, two of the three physicians that treated him testified. The $145 bill of Dr. Jordan Davis, one of the testifying physicians, was initially admitted into evidence, but later withdrawn by the trial judge apparently on the ground that Davis was an “examining physician” in contrast to a “treating physician” the jury retired to deliberate and then requested Dr. Davis’ bill. The judge advised that he had withdrawn the bill and it was not to be considered by the jurors. Subsequently, a verdict for $250 in favor of the plaintiff was returned and judgment was entered therefor. Plaintiff contends the trial judge erred in withdrawing Dr. Davis’ bill. We find this point well taken.
Dr. Davis testified that he prescribed medication for the plaintiff after examining him. Thus, we find that Dr. Davis was a “treating physician.” Cf. Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Co., 253 So. 2d 882 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). The testimony of Dr. Davis being admissible and a proper foundation having been laid for the introduction of his bill into evidence, the trial judge erred in withdrawing the bill from the jury’s consideration. See Marine Exploration Company, Inc. v. McCoy, 308 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cherylann Hobbs v. Sauers, 359 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…mproperly excluded from evidence by the trial court. Further, we are of the opinion that if Dr. Davis’s testimony had been admitted, it would have created a justiciable issue of fact which was properly determinable by the jury. See Parker v. Martin, 338 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Kerr, 258 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Co., 253 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); and City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 215 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Acco…
Authorities Cited
- Steiger v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., 253 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Marine Exploration Co., Inc. v. McCOY, 308 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)