Aarmada Protection Systems 2000, Inc. v. Yandell
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18108
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Yandell sued Aarmada Protection Systems 2000, Inc. and driver for injuries from August 2007 rear-end collision; ambulance transported him to the hospital with neck sprain and lumbar strain.
- Yandell underwent treatment from multiple providers, including Dr. Wexler (orthopedic), chiropractor Dr. Scuderi, and MRI work; Scuderi’s care included physical therapy and a September 2007 MRI; Scuderi charged about $40,000.
- In November 2007 Yandell was referred to Dr. Theofilos (spinal neurosurgeon) for further treatment, including epidurals and a disco-gram; projected future costs for fusion surgery estimated at $100,000–$120,000.
- Defense moved in limine to preclude testimony on the reasonableness/necessity of medical treatment; trial court granted the motion in limine restricting causation questions to doctors, while allowing testimony on reasonableness of medical bills.
- During trial, defense introduced redacted depositions; jury heard substantial testimony regarding reasonableness and necessity of Theofilos’ care; closing argument included improper remarks by both sides.
- Jury awarded past medical expenses of $107,812, future medical expenses $65,000 (present value), plus pain/suffering, lost earnings, and loss of consortium; defendants moved for new trial, which the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of exclusion of evidence | Exclusion preserved substantial testimony on medical necessity and reasonableness. | Motion in limine foreclosed only specific topics; testimony presented. | Issue not preserved due to lack of trial-record transcript; affirmed on preservation grounds. |
| Whether PSR Act violation occurred for Theofilos MRI referrals | Referral violated self-referral statute due to physician ownership interests. | Statutory exemption may apply; arrangement possibly within exemption. | No reversible error; record supports exemption under statute. |
| Cumulative closing argument error | Closing remarks were improper and cumulatively prejudicial. | Many remarks were fair replies; not all objected; any error not reversible. | Court did not abuse discretion; arguments not incurably prejudicial; no new trial warranted. |
| Admissibility/impact of in limine rulings on trial evidence | Defense evidence about reasonableness of costs should have been excluded. | Reasonableness of bills could be addressed; causation remains issue. | Not separately reversible; court's rulings within discretion given preservation and record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000) (to challenge closing arguments, must show improper, harmful, incurable, and impact on public justice)
- Companioni v. City of Tampa, 51 So.3d 452 (Fla.2010) (abuse of discretion in reviewing trial court decisions; standard for new-trial analysis)
- Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So.2d 777 (Fla.4th DCA 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for motions in limine rulings)
- Edwards v. State, 39 So.3d 447 (Fla.4th DCA 2010) (preservation and review standards for evidentiary rulings)
- Brantley v. Snapper Power Equip., Inc., 665 So.2d 241 (Fla.3d DCA 1995) (offer of proof and preservation on appeal)