Moore v. Gillett, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11662

Gillett and spouse sued Moore for injuries from a January 19, 2000 auto collision; Moore admitted liability at trial.
Jury awarded Gillett past medical expenses $26,434.40 and future medical expenses $225,000; noneconomic damages were awarded 0.
Trial occurred in September 2010 after a decade of litigation; the main issues focused on permanency and RSD/CRPS claims.
The trial court granted a new trial based on alleged misconduct by Moore’s lead counsel, grounding the decision on totality of conduct rather than any single act.
On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for entry of final judgment consistent with the jury verdict, holding no preserved error supported a new trial.
The court discussed four preserved-error grounds alleged in the new-trial order and analyzed them under abuse-of-discretion and Binger frameworks, ultimately finding insufficient basis for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dropped-claims references at trial	Gillett contends defense referenced dropped claims improperly.	Moore contends references were improper.	No preserved error; references did not warrant a new trial.
Eliciting new RSD opinion from Shim	Shim’s testimony unexpectedly contradicted prior stance on RSD.	Shim merely described signs; no new RSD opinion.	No fundamental error; no new trial required.
Leading questions on Linde's direct examination	Defense leading questions improper and prejudicial.	Many questions not leading; remedy chosen mitigated harm.	Issue unpreserved; no basis for new trial.
Ambush through Korevaar's testimony	Undisclosed somatization disorder opinion ambushed the case.	Any undisclosed opinions were not prejudicial; pretrial rulings shown.	No basis for new trial; bias/prejudice not shown; abuse of discretion not established.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial orders; need record support)
Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) (Murphy standard for fundamental error in new-trial rulings)
Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 1981) (test for excluding undisclosed witnesses; prejudice and discovery focus)
Spalding v. Zatz, 70 So.3d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (surprise testimony and prejudice analysis in context of disclosure)
Gouveia v. Phillips, 823 So.2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (pretrial discovery prejudice standard for witness testimony)
Puza v. Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., 526 So.2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (leading questions generally not basis for new trial)
Murrell v. Edwards, 504 So.2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (leading questions not typically error warranting new trial)
Dorsey v. Reddy, 931 So.2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (trial conduct and evidentiary issues reviewed for error)
Snapper Power Equip., Inc. v. Dozer, 605 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (cumulative-error review and abuse-of-discretion standard)
Earnest v. Southeast Fid. Ins. Co., 422 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (record-supported abuse-of-discretion requirement for new-trial rulings)
Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (standard for reversing a trial court's evidentiary rulings)
Reynolds v. Towne Mgmt. of Fla., Inc., 426 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (requirement that trial-court findings be supported by the record)