State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Long, 189 So. 3d 335

William Long sued his uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier, State Farm, after a motorcycle accident causing a shoulder injury; jury awarded $166,000 (including $116,000 for past and future medicals).
Past medicals of $46,283.96 were stipulated; future medicals were based on testimony at trial.
Plaintiff called Kim Nordelo, a physician’s assistant (PA) who worked under orthopedic surgeon Dr. Frank Cannon, to testify about need for future shoulder surgery and estimated surgery costs.
Nordelo testified PAs see many shoulder cases, that Long had reached the limit for cortisone injections, and that surgery would likely be required; he gave itemized cost estimates for surgery and rehab.
State Farm objected that Nordelo, as a PA without authority to make final diagnoses or independently order surgery, was not qualified to opine on need for future surgery or the associated costs.
The trial court admitted Nordelo’s testimony; the Fifth District reversed, holding the court abused its discretion in allowing the PA to opine on need for future surgery and remanded for a new trial limited to future damages (and vacated related attorney’s fees judgment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a physician’s assistant may testify as an expert at trial that future surgery is needed	Nordelo’s long familiarity with Long and involvement in treatment qualifies him to opine about future surgery	PA lacks authority to make final diagnosis or surgical decisions; only the supervising physician may determine need for surgery	Reversed: PA not qualified to opine that future surgery was appropriate; testimony exceeded his expertise and admission was abuse of discretion
Whether a PA may testify as an expert about costs of future surgery	PA’s familiarity with procedures and practice gives a foundation to estimate costs	PA does not bill for or perform surgery and lacks billing authority; thus not competent to testify to surgery costs	Reversed: PA not qualified to give expert opinion on future surgery costs tied to future-damages award

Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2006) (trial court discretion to qualify experts)
Holland v. State, 773 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 2000) (expert qualification principles)
Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (scope of expert testimony)
GIW S. Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (limits on nonphysicians opining on future medical deterioration)
Carver v. Orange Cty., 444 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (appellate review of expert testimony rulings)
The Trustees of Cent. States Se. and Sw. Areas, Pension Fund v. Indico Corp., 401 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (limits on trial court discretion)
Baan v. Columbia Cty., 180 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (burden to establish admissibility of challenged expert testimony)
Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789 (6th Cir. 1989) (expert competent in one area may be incompetent in another; new trial where expert exceeded scope)
Apostolico v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 871 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (medical-malpractice screening standard for experts is less stringent than trial)
Rolon v. Burke, 112 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (new trial limited to disputed damage category)
ITT Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se. v. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002) (limiting retrial to contested damages)
McCown v. Estate of Seidell, 831 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (trial on damages limited to disputed future claims)