Pedro v. Baber
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3682
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mr. Pedro rear-ended Baber; Baber sought treatment for neck and back pain.
- Baber underwent emergency care, diagnosed whiplash, then nonsurgical therapy with Dr. Wall.
- Dr. Nucci diagnosed neck and low-back injury with a proposed surgery; after a year she had surgery.
- Post-surgery Baber’s pain persisted or worsened; Pedros contested medical expenses related to the back surgery.
- Pedros attacked Dr. Nucci’s credibility; cross-examination suggested surgery was unnecessary; Stuart instruction requested.
- Trial court gave a Stuart instruction and Baber prevailed at trial; Pedros appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Stuart instruction was required | Baber’s necessity testimony opened door to malpractice framing | Pedros argued instruction unnecessary; case focused on unrelatedness to accident | Stuart instruction required given cross and direct evidence suggesting malpractice impact |
| Whether cross-examination on necessity was within discretion | Cross-exam opened broader subject; credibility and care standards at stake | Cross-examination limited to credibility; other limits apply | Trial court did not abuse discretion; cross-exam permissible under §90.612(2) |
| Whether evidence of unnecessary surgery improperly shifted blame | Evidence tied damages to medical negligence; Stuart instruction needed | Defense argued surgery was unrelated to accident, not malpractice | No reversible error; Stuart instruction affirmed to address evidence |
| Whether trial court’s admission of necessity testimony harmed the Pedros | Necessity witness testimony affected damages and causation | Testimony was properly admitted to address treatment need | No abuse of discretion; court properly instructed jury on law |
Key Cases Cited
- Dungan v. Ford, 632 So.2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (Stuart-like instruction required when post-accident surgery questioned)
- Nason v. Shafranski, 33 So.3d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (Unnecessary surgery evidence can shift damages; Stuart instruction proper)
- Music v. Hebb, 744 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (Cross-exam can probe above direct testimony; regards necessity)
- Tucker v. Korpita, 77 So.3d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Duty to give Stuart instruction when experts deny causality or necessity)
- Doubek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 804 So.2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (Stuart instruction warranted when door opened to malpractice evidence)
- Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So.2d 422 (Fla.1990) (Instruction decisions within trial court’s discretion)