27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1008b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2712SAUVInsurance — Personal injury protection — Inconsistent jury verdict — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s objection to inconsistent verdict finding more treatments to be related and medically necessary than were shown in medical records — Failure of trial court to send matter back to jury to correct verdict requires new trial
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SUNRISE CHIROPRACTIC & REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., a/a/o Michel Saint Sauveur, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE15-016091 (AP). L.T. Case No. CONO11-014147. January 28, 2020. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jill K. Levy, Judge. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Russel Lazega, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Appellee.
OPINION
(PER CURIAM.) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) appeals a final judgment in favor of Sunrise Chiropractic & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (“Sunrise”). Having carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, this Court dispenses with oral argument and the final judgment is hereby AFFIRMED, in part, and REVERSED, in part, as set forth below:
In the proceedings below, Sunrise filed suit to recover personal injury protection benefits from State Farm for breach of contract pursuant to an assignment of benefits from Michel Saint Sauveur (the “Insured”). On June 9, 2015, a jury trial commenced on the issues of relatedness and medical necessity of several ,CPT codes and dates of service as well as the reasonableness of the charges. As to the contested treatments for the dates of service and CPT codes, the jury found in favor of Sunrise. State Farm filed an Amended Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (“Amended Motion”) on June 23, 2015, which was denied on July 21, 2015. Final Judgment was entered in favor of Sunrise on August 11, 2015.
State Farm argues, inter alia, that the verdict form utilized by the county court caused confusion and resulted in an inconsistent verdict. “A jury’s verdict in a civil case is generally clothed with a presumption of regularity.” Coba v. Tricam Industries, Inc., 164 So. 3d 637, 643 (Fla. 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly S257a] (internal punctuation omitted). “Thus, an appellate court will not disturb a final judgment if there is competent substantial evidence to support the verdict on which the judgment rests.” Id.
State Farm asserts that confusion arose because the form referred only to CPT codes rather than the treatment described and that the verdict form contained no information on the number of times Sunrise billed each CPT code, the amount it charged for each treatment, or whether the jury should award a global or per-treatment amount. (Appellant’s Br., pg. 22). Counsel for State Farm objected based on the inconsistent verdict and requested that the court poll the jury. (R. 1639). The county court discharged the jury and overruled Mr. Hellman’s objection to the inconsistent verdict. (R. 1639-1641). In Coba, the Supreme Court of Florida instructs,
[w]hen a jury in a civil case returns with an inconsistent verdict and a party does not object before the jury is discharged, the well-established law has been that the party waives any objections to the inconsistent verdict . . . Consistent with our long-standing precedent, we hold that a party must timely object to an inconsistent verdict . . .or the issue is waived.
164 So. 3d at 638. Here, Dr. Mathesie provided his opinion as to what treatments were related and medically necessary. (R. 1416, 1427-1429). As it relates to CPT 97035, for example, State Farm points to the fact that, of the twenty-six treatments the jury determined to be related and medically necessary, Sunrise’s medical records only show twenty-two treatments. This result is inconsistent, as contemplated by the court in Coba. This Court finds that the county court erroneously denied State Farm’s objection. The county court’s failure to send the matter back to the jury to correct the inconsistent verdict requires that this Court grant a new trial. See Coba, 164 So. 3d at 644 (instructing that if a party timely objects to an inconsistent verdict and the court erroneously denies the objection and discharges the jury, the correct remedy is to grant a new trial.)
State Farm raises several other evidentiary issues on appeal. “The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion.” Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D296a] (citing Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 373 (Fla. 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly S535a]). Upon careful review of the record, this Court determines that the county court did not abuse its discretion as to the issues raised. Therefore, the decisions of the county court are affirmed.
Accordingly, the final judgment entered in favor of Appellee is hereby AFFIRMED, in part, and REVERSED, in part. This case is REMANDED to the county court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Appellant’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is hereby conditionally GRANTED as to appellate attorney’s fees, with the amount to be determined by the county court upon remand, contingent on the county court’s determination that State Farm’s proposal for settlement complies with the requirements of law and State Farm ultimately prevailing in the case. Additionally, Appellee’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is hereby DENIED. (BOWMAN, LOPANE, and FAHNESTOCK, JJ., concur.)
