18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 310b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1803FIGU
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Jury instructions — Motion for judgment in accordance with directed verdict or new trial based on allegedly improper jury instruction regarding proof of reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses is denied where insurer did not object to jury instruction prior to date of trial and any timely objection would have been denied because instruction is correct statement of law
NDNC NEUROLOGICAL TREATMENT CENTER, INC. (a/a/o Jocelia Figueroa), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 06-19689 COCE 53. October 18, 2010. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Nathan J. Avrunin, Davie, for Plaintiff. Orlando Ortiz, Miami, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FORJUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MOTION FORDIRECTED VERDICT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s having filed its Motion, and the Court having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; reviewed the relevant legal authorities; and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
The Defendant has filed its Motion, arguing that the Court gave an incorrect jury instruction. To properly rule on this Motion, a brief background should be considered:
On June 3, 2008, this Court entered its Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines, which required, among other things, that the parties file a joint pretrial stipulation including proposed jury instructions.
On July 15, 2008, the parties filed their Joint Pretrial Stipulation, which included “attached jury instructions.” After going through an unrelated appeal process, the case was set for pretrial conference for August 24, 2010. A copy of the jury instructions, which included the instruction at issue, was mailed out to the parties the same day. The jury trial was scheduled for September 22, 2010. At no point prior to the trial date did the Defendant object to the instruction. The Court has no recollection as to which party provided the proposed instruction to the Court. If, however, the Defendant had an objection to it, then the Defendant should have promptly brought it to the Court’s attention, and not waited until the day of trial.
The instruction at issues reads as follows:
Expert medical testimony is not necessary in order for a plaintiff to prove the reasonableness and necessity of the claimed medical expenses. When a plaintiff testifies as to the amount of the medical bills, it becomes a question for the jury to decide whether these bills represented reasonable and necessary medical expenses.
Even had the instruction timely been objection to, the instruction is a correct statement of the law, and the objection would have been overruled. See Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., Inc., 336 So.2d 566, 571 (Fla 1976); Sea World of Florida v. Ace American Ins. Companies, 28 So. 3d 158, 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D361a]; East West Karate Ass’n, Inc. v. Riquelme, 638 So.2d 604, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Irwin v. Blake, 589 So.2d 973, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Moreover, at the trial, the patient testified in person, and her medical bills and records were received into evidence by stipulation of the parties. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
