Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesappealtrialtestimony

plaintiffdamagesappealtrialtestimonyadmissibility

Related Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Long, 189 So.3d 335, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D995

Facts

Long was involved in a motorcycle collision that injured his shoulder. He subsequently sued State Farm, his uninsured motorist carrier, seeking $100,000 in coverage. During the trial, he presented testimony from a physician's assistant, Kim Nordelo, regarding his future medical expenses, which included the potential need for surgery. The jury awarded Long $166,000, but State Farm appealed, arguing that Nordelo was not qualified to testify as an expert on the need for surgery.

Long injured his shoulder in a motorcycle collision. Thereafter, he sued his uninsured motorist carrier, State Farm, seeking to recover $100,000 in uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist coverage. The jury ultimately awarded Long damages totaling $166,000, which included $116,000 for past and future medical expenses.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in allowing a physician's assistant to testify as an expert regarding the need for future surgery for the plaintiff.

Rule

To qualify as an expert, a witness must have the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education on the subject about which the witness is called to testify. The decision to qualify a witness as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.

To qualify as an expert, the witness must have the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education on the subject about which the witness is called to testify. § 90.702, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.390.

Analysis

The court determined that Nordelo, as a physician's assistant, lacked the authority to independently diagnose the need for surgery, which is a decision reserved for a physician. Although he had experience treating Long, his testimony regarding the necessity of future surgery was deemed beyond his qualifications. The court concluded that allowing Nordelo's testimony was an abuse of discretion, as it significantly impacted the outcome of the trial.

Because State Farm properly challenged Nordelo's competence to testify as an expert on the need for a future surgery, the burden was on Long to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the basis for the admissibility of Nordelo's testimony. Long failed to satisfy his burden.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of future damages, concluding that the error in admitting Nordelo's testimony was not harmless.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of future damages.

Who won?

State Farm prevailed in the appeal because the court agreed that the trial court erred in allowing the physician's assistant to testify as an expert on the need for future surgery.

State Farm prevailed in the appeal because the court agreed that it was error to allow a physician's assistant to testify as an expert on the need and cost for a future surgery.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Normand v. Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC, 340 So.3d 615, 2019-00263 (La. 1/29/20)

Rubin v. United States, 525 U.S. 990, 119 S.Ct. 461 (Mem), 142 L.Ed.2d 413, 67 USLW 3083, 67 USLW 3319, 98 USLW 3318, 50 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 310, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8295, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,505

Don McCullagh, Inc. v. State, 354 Mich. 413, 93 N.W.2d 252

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 276 Minn. 479, 151 N.W.2d 294

Strayhorn v. Ethical Soc. of Austin, 110 S.W.3d 458