Narrative Opinion Summary
In a negligence case, the plaintiffs, Robert and Carol Vereb, appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, Susan and Patrick Sardoni. The case arose from a rear-end collision on December 26, 1995, which resulted in shoulder injuries to Mr. Vereb, necessitating two surgeries. The plaintiffs sought damages for Mr. Vereb's injuries and Mrs. Vereb's loss of consortium. A central issue was the causation of Mr. Vereb’s injuries, with plaintiffs attributing them to the accident and defendants attributing them to Mr. Vereb's physically demanding job. During the trial, the admissibility of a physical therapy record was contested. The record contained an entry indicating "Repetitive Activity: HEAVY LABOR OVERUSE," which the defense argued was an admission against interest. The plaintiffs objected, citing it as expert opinion inadmissible under Florida law. The trial court admitted the record, determining it was not an opinion or diagnosis. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error and upholding the trial court's discretion in evidentiary rulings. The ruling was affirmed with concurrence from Justices Cobb and Palmer, leaving the original verdict in favor of the defendants intact.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Statements in Medical Recordssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the physical therapy record was admissible, as the statement did not qualify as expert opinion or diagnosis, and thus did not fall under the exclusion of hearsay under Florida Statutes section 90.803(6)(b).
Reasoning: The trial court ultimately allowed the record's admission, asserting that the statement did not constitute an opinion or diagnosis.
Standard of Review for Evidentiary Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to admit the physical therapy record, emphasizing the trial court's discretion in evidentiary matters and finding no reversible error.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding there was no reversible error in admitting the physical therapy record.