13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1160c
Insurance — Personal injury protection — No error in and directing verdict that office visits and treatment in dispute were medically necessary and related to accident where medical provider’s expert testified that charges were medically necessary and related, and testimony of insurer’s expert supported that contention
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC CENTER, P.A. a/a/o Rebecca Jones, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 05-10869 (02). August 8, 2006. Counsel: Joseph R. Dawson, Fort Lauderdale. Douglas H. Stein, Miami.
ORDER
(VICTOR TOBIN, J.) Appellant, Progressive Express Insurance Company, appeals the Final Judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Florida Orthopaedic Center, P.A. as assignee of Rebecca Jones, after the trial court granted Appellee’s Second Motion in Limine precluding the testimony of one of Appellant’s expert witnesses, Dr. Costello, and directed a verdict that the office visits and the cervical traction unit in dispute were related and medically necessary.
This court, having reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties, the transcripts, and the file, and being duly advised in premises finds and decides as follows:
The standard of review for a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine regarding an expert witness grants deference to the trial court’s discretion, which is reversible upon a clear showing of error. Home Ins. Co. v. Crawford & Co., 890 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). This court finds that it was within the discretion of the trial court to exclude Appellant’s expert witness, Dr. Costello, and finds no error requiring the reversal of the court’s ruling.
A motion for a directed verdict evaluates evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, confers every reasonable inference from the evidence in the non-movant’s favor, and determines whether the evidence supports no view in favor of the non-movant. Jenkins v. UBN Global Trading Corp., 886 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Here, Appellee’s expert orthopedic witness testified that the charges involved were medically necessary and related to the subject automobile accident, and the Appellant’s own expert orthopedist’s testimony supported this contention. Thus, with no question left for the jury to decide, the lower court properly granted a directed verdict as to this issue.
The Final Judgment granting Appellee’s Motion in Limine regarding Appellant’s expert witness and Appellee’s Motion for a Directed Verdict is hereby AFFIRMED.
