Brown v. Lunskis
128 So. 3d 77
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Minor rear-quarter collision on Jan. 21, 2009; no police/ambulance; vehicles operable; property damage ≈ $1,660.70.
- Plaintiff Lunskis sought treatment from Dr. Clara Creighton (accident-clinic physician); treated for back, neck, and later knee (arthroscopic surgery for meniscal tear) and recorded suspected TMJ dysfunction.
- Jury found Browns negligent, awarded Lunskis $58,763.43 (exactly his medical bills) and expressly found no permanent injuries.
- After verdict, Lunskis moved (renewed) for directed verdict as to permanency of a TMJ injury; trial court granted directed verdict on TMJ permanency and ordered a new trial on damages.
- The Second District reversed, holding Wald v. Grainger did not justify directing verdict because conflicting medical evidence, challenges to the expert’s qualifications, and incomplete medical history provided a proper basis for the jury to reject Dr. Creighton’s permanency opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a directed verdict on permanency (TMJ) was appropriate post-verdict | Creighton’s testimony established prima facie permanency of TMJ | Browns pointed to conflicting expert opinion and other evidence to challenge permanency | Reversed: directed verdict improper — jury could reject plaintiff’s expert |
| Whether Wald v. Grainger permits directing verdict on permanency here | Wald allows directing verdict where expert proof is unrebutted | Wald requires that expert testimony be unrebutted, unimpeached, or not contradicted by other evidence | Wald does not support directed verdict where opposing medical testimony, impeachment of expert, or other conflicting evidence exist |
| Whether expert impeachment/deficiency justified jury rejection of permanency opinion | Lunskis argued his expert’s opinion was sufficient despite lack of specialist referral | Browns showed: (1) independent medical examiner said no permanent injury, (2) Creighton lacked TMJ specialization and credibility was contested, (3) Creighton lacked full dental/medical history relevant to TMJ | Court held these grounds gave the jury a reasonable basis to reject plaintiff’s permanency testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011) (framework for directing verdict on medical permanency based on expert testimony)
- Fell v. Carlin, 6 So.3d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (standard of review for directed verdict — view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2005) (same standard for directed verdict review)