Pugliese v. Terek
117 So. 3d 1230
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendants appeal an order granting a new trial on damages and urge reversal to reinstate the jury verdict.
- The jury awarded Plaintiff past and future medicals and past and future pain and suffering totaling $169,041.
- Evidence at trial was conflicting about the reasonableness of 2006 medical fees and causation of the 2009 surgery.
- MRI results showed 2004 injuries and new 2009 findings not present in 2004, suggesting possible intervening trauma.
- Trial court granted an additur (initially $271,000) and then a new trial solely on damages; the court provided no adequate rationale.
- The trial court’s rulings and the additur were the basis for the appeal and remand decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial on damages. | Terek; verdict was supported by conflicting evidence. | Pugliese/Regional Hospitalists; additur and new trial proper due to damages concerns. | Yes; new trial on damages reversed; verdict reinstated. |
| Whether the additur and its rationale were proper. | Additur exceeded the jury’s findings and misused the evidence. | Additur was warranted based on perceived insufficiency of damages. | Improper to grant additur; reversal to reinstate verdict. |
| Whether the jury’s damages verdict was supported by substantial evidence. | Evidence supported causation and reasonableness of claimed damages. | Some damages not causally linked to 2004 accident; intervening trauma possible. | There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict; no basis to disturb. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (discretion in assessing new-trial or additur rulings requires support in the record)
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1977) (verdicts should not be disturbed when supported by some evidence)
- Undenoriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. Harrison, 338 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (weight of evidence standard; cross-review of damages verdicts)
- Wackenhut v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978) (new-trial orders must be supported by reasons allowing appellate review)
- Dailey v. Hendricks, 213 So.2d 600 (Fla.1st DCA 1968) (record must support a trial judge’s manifest-weight finding)
- Tuttle v. Miami Dolphins, Ltd., 551 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (trial court must set forth reasons for new-trial order to enable review)