202 So. 3d 913
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Minor fender-bender: plaintiffs Yarielsi Batista and husband sued Evan and Julie Finkel; liability trial found Evan Finkel 100% liable.
- Bifurcated trial: second phase addressed causation and damages for Batista’s alleged back injury. Both parties presented conflicting medical experts.
- Batista’s treating orthopedic surgeon testified the accident caused partial permanent lower-back injury but admitted Batista failed to disclose a subsequent car accident and a slip-and-fall that also caused back complaints and hospital visits. He acknowledged his opinion might have changed if he had known about those incidents.
- Defendants’ expert said certain diagnostic testing shortly after the accident was reasonably necessary, but expressly premised that opinion on assuming Batista’s pain complaints were truthful.
- The jury form (unchallenged by plaintiffs) was “all-or-nothing”: it first asked whether the accident legally caused injury; the jury answered “No” and awarded no damages. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial relying on the rule that plaintiffs may recover diagnostic testing reasonably necessary to determine causation. Trial court granted new trial solely on that basis.
- Appellate court reversed, holding exceptions to the diagnostic-testing rule applied (lack of candor, conflicting medical opinions), sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict, and plaintiffs failed to object to the verdict form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled as a matter of law to recover medical expenses for diagnostic testing despite a jury finding no causation | Batista argued Sparks-Book rule entitles recovery for diagnostic testing reasonably necessary to determine causation | Finkel argued exceptions apply (lack of candor, conflicting medical opinions) so diagnostic-testing rule not mandatory | Held: Exceptions apply here (lack of candor, conflicting expert testimony); jury verdict supported; Sparks-Book rule not dispositive |
| Whether lack of candor with treating physicians affects entitlement to diagnostic costs | Plaintiffs contended diagnostic testing remains recoverable even if later facts complicate causation | Defendants pointed to Batista’s failure to disclose subsequent accidents undermining credibility and necessity of testing | Held: Lack of candor is a recognized exception; it undercut credibility and supported jury’s no-causation finding |
| Whether defendants’ expert’s opinion that testing was reasonable controlled the outcome | Plaintiffs emphasized defendants’ expert conceded testing was reasonable | Defendants emphasized that opinion assumed Batista’s pain complaints were truthful and thus could be rejected by the jury | Held: Jury could discount that opinion because it rested on assumed truthfulness; evidence supported rejecting it |
| Whether trial court erred in granting a new trial when plaintiffs failed to object to the all-or-nothing verdict form | Plaintiffs did not object and argued Sparks-Book required a new trial | Defendants argued plaintiffs invited the verdict form and cannot fault jury following instructions | Held: Plaintiffs’ failure to object to verdict form barred complaint; jury followed instructions; trial court erred by granting new trial solely on Sparks-Book rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparks-Book v. Sports Authority, Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (recognizing general rule allowing recovery of diagnostic testing reasonable to determine causation)
- Plana v. Sainz, 990 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (recognizing exceptions to Sparks-Book, including lack of candor and conflicting medical opinions)
- Hernandez v. Gonzalez, 124 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (discussing verdict-form objections and diagnostic-testing rule exceptions)
- Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999) (trial judge must articulate reasons when granting new trial on manifest-weight grounds)
- Van v. Schmidt, 122 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2013) (standard of review and remedy framework when trial court grants new trial based on legal error)
- Buitrago v. Feaster, 157 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (legal error can constitute abuse of discretion in granting new trial)
- Schwartz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 155 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (reversing new-trial order and reinstating jury verdict in similar circumstances)