FLNC, Inc. v. Ramos
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7180
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Sonia Mercado-Bosque, a nursing-home resident with multiple sclerosis and diabetes, developed foot ulcers, infection, and gangrene while at Florida Living Nursing Center; she underwent left-leg amputation and later died of unrelated causes.
- The Estate sued the Nursing Home for negligence, alleging failure to reposition Ms. Mercado regularly and inadequate recordkeeping, which caused the ulcers, infection, and gangrene.
- Competing expert testimony: Estate’s expert blamed inadequate repositioning and poor records; Nursing Home’s experts testified care met the standard, diabetes/impaired circulation caused the infection, and amputation was unavoidable.
- Jury verdict: found Nursing Home negligent, awarded stipulated past medical expenses ($13,309.23), but awarded nothing for pain and suffering or other non-economic damages.
- Trial court granted an additur ($9,500) but because the Estate rejected it, the court ordered a new trial limited to causation and damages (denying a retrial on liability). Both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Estate) | Defendant's Argument (Nursing Home) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §768.74 authorizes only a damages-only new trial after a finding of liability | Because jury found liability, statute requires either additur/remittitur or a new trial limited to damages only | The statute permits additur/remittitur but does not preclude full retrial when verdict is compromised | Court: Section 768.74 does not bar a new trial on liability when the verdict shows hallmarks of compromise; remand for new trial on liability, causation, and damages |
| Whether the jury rendered an improper compromised verdict | Jury’s award of only past medicals despite finding liability was nevertheless within plaintiffs’ chosen statutory remedy (additur/new-trial-on-damages) | Nursing Home contended the verdict could stand or that retrial should address all issues including liability | Court: Liability and causation were hotly contested and the damages award was clearly inadequate—hallmarks of a compromised verdict were present |
| Whether a new trial limited to causation and damages was sufficient | Estate sought damages-only retrial if additur rejected | Nursing Home sought retrial on liability, causation, and damages | Court: New trial limited to damages was insufficient; ordered full retrial on liability, causation, and damages |
| Appropriate remedy when additur rejected and verdict compromised | New trial on damages only per statute | New trial on liability and damages necessary when compromise likely | Court: When liability is hotly contested and damages are clearly inadequate, a complete new trial is proper despite §768.74(4) limiting language |
Key Cases Cited
- Calloway v. Dania Jai Alai Palace, Inc., 560 So.2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (compromised verdicts justify retrial of liability where liability was vigorously contested)
- Watson v. Builders Square, Inc., 563 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (finding inadequate damages plus hotly disputed liability warrants retrial of liability and damages)
- Food Lion v. Jackson, 712 So.2d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (court may order new trial on liability and damages where evidence suggests jury compromise despite statutory additur/remittitur scheme)
- Westminster Cmty. Care Servs., Inc. v. Mikesell, 12 So.3d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reaffirming line of decisions allowing retrial on liability when liability was hotly contested and damages inadequate)
- 1661 Corp. v. Snyder, 267 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (to grant damages-only retrial, defendant’s liability must be unequivocally established and inadequacy must not stem from jury compromise)