19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1906THOMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Evidence — No abuse of discretion in permitting medical provider to argue to jury that insurer should not be permitted to withdraw benefits retroactively based on independent medical examination; prohibiting insurer from arguing that insured was indemnified in event that treatment was found to be not reasonable and provider sued insured; allowing evidence that other providers refused to accept insured’s insurance; allowing evidence of insurer’s alleged failure to act in good faith; and allowing evidence that insurer provides benefits for spiritual healing when there no benefits for spiritual healing were being sought
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. CHIRO-CARE CENTRE OF BROWARD INC. d/b/a CHIROPRACTIC USA A/A/O JOSIE THOMAS, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 09-032574 CACE (07). Consolidated with 09-052010 CACE (05). L.T. Case No. 06-002458 COCE (54). February 2, 2012. Honorable Lisa Trachman, Judge.
OPINION
(STREITFELD, Judge.) THIS CAUSE came before the Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, upon appeal by Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company, of the trial court’s Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the resulting awarding attorney’s fees and costs. The Court, having considered the briefs filed by the parties and being duly advised in premises and law, dispenses with oral argument and finds and decides as follows:
On February 9, 2006, Chiro-Care Centre of Broward, Inc., d/b/a Chiropractic USA (“Chiropractic USA”), as assignee of Josie Thomas (“Thomas”), filed a one count complaint against United Automobile Insurance Company (“UAI”) for breach of contract of PIP benefits arising from an accident that occurred on November 19, 2004. Chiropractic USA sought payment for medical bills submitted to UAI for medical services rendered to the insured, Thomas. On April 6, 2006, UAI filed its answer and affirmative defenses. UAI asserted that it was not responsible for the payment of the medical bills based upon a December 21, 2004 independent medical examination conducted on Thomas. Dr. Siegel, UAI’s independent medical examiner, determined that the expenses charged by Chiropractic USA were not reasonable, related, or necessary and that Thomas’ benefits should be cut off.
On May 20 and 21, 2009, a jury trial was held. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee Chiropractic USA. Appellant UAI appeals the final judgment for benefits and resulting final judgment awarding attorney fees.1 Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motions in limine. Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it: (1) impermissibly permitted Appellee to argue to the jury that Appellant should not be permitted to retroactively withdraw benefits pursuant to an independent medical evaluation; (2) impermissibly prohibited Appellant to argue to the jury that Thomas was indemnified in the event the treatment was found to be not reasonable and Chiropractic USA sued Thomas (3) impermissibly allowed evidence that other medical providers refused to accept the Appellee’s insurance; (4) impermissibly allowed evidence of an alleged failure to act in good faith; and (5) impermissibly allowed evidence that the Appellant provides benefits for spiritual healing when there are no benefits being sought for spiritual healing. Appellant argues that the cumulative effect of these errors mandates reversal of this case.
A ruling on a motion in limine will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D494a]. Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision to admit or exclude evidence, an appellate court will not overturn that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Thigpen v. United Parcel Services, 990 So. 2d 639, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D2133a]. Discretion is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980). Upon a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that there was no abuse of discretion shown with regard to the evidentiary rulings of the trial court.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff is AFFIRMED.
__________________
1Appellant sought to preclude the award of attorney’s fees only if this Court reversed final judgment.
* * *
