Posted November 29, 2011
Torts-Auto Accident-Reasonableness Of Treatment
Fourth DCA Denies New Trial Because Trial Court's Exclusion Of Opinions That Plaintiff's Treatment
Was Not Reasonable Or Necessary Was Harmless Where Such Evidence Came In Through The Written Reports And
Other Evidence
Aarmada Protection Systems 2000, Inc., v. Yandell
36 FLW D2485a (Fla. 4th DCA, November 16, 2011)
In case involving a motor vehicle accident with injuries, Plaintiffs filed a pre-trial Motion in Limine, requesting an order precluding Defendants from presenting any argument or evidence that Yandell's health care providers recommended or performed any improper or unnecessary treatment. The trial court granted Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine, indicating the defendants' doctors could not question the appropriateness, need or manner of the medical treatment and could only testify as to causation and reasonableness of the medical bills. A jury verdict was entered on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendants' appealed on the grounds that the preclusion of testimony regarding reasonableness was error.
The 4th DCA, considered two issues- whether precluding evidence from Defendants' expert doctors was improper and whether comments made during Plaintiffs' counsel's closing arguments were improper. The court compared the pre-trial report from the defendants' doctors to those doctor's testimony and determined the jury heard all of the evidence, as information contained in the report and the testimony were substantially the same. The 4th DCA also held that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court regarding the closing arguments, as while there were a number of improper comments made during closing arguments, neither party objected or requested curative instructions at the time and none of those comments were incurable and/or caused substantial harm.
Editors Note: Interestingly, the 4th DCA did not address the fact that all of the information the Motion in Limine was supposed to preclude was allowed into evidence, raising the inference that it was appropriate for the jury to consider.
* * *
If you would like more information regarding this topic, please contact Matt Evans at .