22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 153a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201DETTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Trial — Bifurcation of non-intertwined issues of whether MRI was medically necessary and related to accident and whether charge was reasonable
MR SERVICES I, INC. d/b/a C & R IMAGING OF HOLLYWOOD (a/a/o Juliene Dettman), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM INSURANCE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 12-16880 COCE, Division 53. July 18, 2014. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Steven Lander, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Jose P. Font, Hollywood, for Defendant.
ORDER OF BIFURCATION
This case came before the Court on June 24th 2014 for jury trial. On the second day of trial, after the first witness had completed testifying, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for mistrial. The matter is now before the Court for resetting of the jury trial.
There are three issues in this case to be decided at trial: whether the MRI provided in this case was related to the automobile accident, whether it was medically necessary, and whether the Plaintiff’s charge for the MRI was reasonable. For reasons explained hereinafter, the Court has sua sponte determined to bifurcate the issues of medical necessity and relatedness of the MRI from the issue of reasonableness of price. The Court concludes that separate trials and separation of the issues will promote convenience and the administration of justice, as well as simplify the case issues for the jury.
Pursuant to Rule 1.270(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.,1 which governs the bifurcation of issues for trial, “the court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any [. . .] separate issue or of any number of claims [. . .] or issues.” A trial court has the power to bifurcate issues in any judicial proceeding, and is generally proper absent a specific threat of inconsistent verdicts. Microclimate Sales Co., Inc. v. Doherty, 731 So. 2d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D1174a]. An action can be bifurcated when the issues are not intertwined. See Roseman v. Town Square Ass’n, Inc., 810 So. 2d 516, 519, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D1833a]. In the instant case, there is no possibility that bifurcation will result in an inconsistent verdict.
The bifurcation of the two separate and distinct issues concerning MRI price and MRI necessity/relatedness are without question supported by Rule 1.270(b) which permits a court to order a separate trial of any issues in a case so long as the bifurcation is done in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice.
In the Court’s experience, a typical PIP jury trial, particularly one involving a single treatment and a single invoice as in the instant case, takes from one to two days to try. This case, however, has devolved into something more than the typical PIP case. For instance, in the original trial, the direct examination of the treating physician was about one-and-one-half hours in length, while cross examination lasted for six hours. This was far, far greater time for questioning of a single witness than this Court has had in any PIP jury trial over which it has presided, in a case which, although the Rules of Civil Procedure have been invoked as permitted by the Small Claims Rules,2 is seeking an amount which fell under the Court’s small claims jurisdiction. Moreover, the parties advised the Court at the beginning of the trial that they intended to call six additional witnesses.3 The parties have advised the Court that they are using different doctors on the questions of medical necessity/relatedness and reasonableness.
Importantly, a verdict in this case in favor of the defense on either medical necessity or relatedness would render the second trial moot, thus saving resources of all parties, as well as the time of the Court and jurors.
The Court further notes the difficulties of having a lengthy jury trial in a case originating out of the Civil Division of the Broward County Court. Each judge in the Civil Division has only a few days each month which can be dedicated to jury trials. All seven judges share two courtrooms, one of which is shared with mental health court and extraditions. Under the current administrative order, the judges in County Court cannot empanel a jury on a Monday due to shortage of jurors. Bifurcating the issues in this case will assist in addressing these logistical difficulties, while permitting the parties to have their issues determined by jury as they requested.
In sum, the Court concludes it is appropriate to hold separate trials on the issues. The case involves different doctors testifying for MRI price and MRI relatedness/necessity, as well as other witnesses who pertain to only one of the two issues. Bifurcating the issues will also provide the Court, the parties and the jury an overall simpler trial. It is also convenient for the Court to have two separate trials because the issue of MRI price will be rendered moot if the jury finds in the first trial that the MRI was not necessary or was not related to the accident. As a result, bifurcation in this case serves to further the interests of convenience, judicial economy, and the administration of justice.
A review of a couple of analogous cases demonstrates the appropriateness of bifurcation in the instant case. For example, in Microclimate Sales, the trial court ordered a separate trial on the melting point issue and freezing point issue of appellee’s product. 731 So. 2d at 858. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a separate trial on the melting and freezing point issues, as liability turned on the melting point issue. Id.
Similar to Microclimate Sales, bifurcation of MRI necessity/ relatedness and MRI price in the instant case is proper as the issues are two distinct issues. The entire case turns on the MRI necessity/relatedness issue, as the MRI price issue is irrelevant if it is found that the MRI was unnecessary or not related to the accident. Cf. Valliappan v. Cruz, 917 So. 2d 257, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2828b] (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to bifurcate usury issue as the facts relevant to usury were also relevant to, and intermingled with, other issues in the case).
Another relevant case is Roseman. In this case, the appellant claimed to have suffered injuries when the front door at appellee’s condo complex quickly closed, striking her in the back. 810 So.2d at 519-520. Appellant further alleged that the door was not properly maintained and that appellee failed to warn her of this dangerous condition. Id. at 519. The association moved for bifurcation of liability and damages, alleging that bifurcation would conserve judicial resources. Id. at 520. The court held that bifurcation of liability and damages in a civil action is ordinarily within the sound discretion of the trial court and that the trial court did not abuse its authority in ordering bifurcation. Id. The court reasoned that because the injuries suffered by the visitor were not intertwined with the issue of whether condominium association negligently maintained door, bifurcation was proper as liability and damages are two independent issues that may be reviewed separately. Id.
Similar to Roseman, the issues of MRI price and MRI necessity/relatedness in the instant case are clearly two non-intertwined issues. The MRI necessity/relatedness issue in the instant case is an issue comparable to the issue of liability in Roseman, as the MRI’s necessity is not essentially related to the price of the MRI, just as the condominium association’s liability is not essentially related to the damages sustained by the victim. Also similar to Roseman, the Court in the instant case is using its sound discretion in bifurcating the issues of necessity and price as doing so is in the best interest of convenience and judicial economy. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the issues of medical necessity/relatedness are bifurcated for trial purposes from the issue of reasonableness of pricing. The Court will issue its separate trial orders.
__________________
1The Court thanks Nova Southeastern University legal intern Ryan Boukzam for his research assistance on this issue.
2Rule 7.020(c), Fla. Sm. Cl. R.
3This was reduced from 11 witnesses, the number of witnesses the parties had originally advised the Court of at the pretrial conference.
