01-1550 LEAL V. WATERPROOFING

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Third District Court of Appeal » 2002 » 01-1550 LEAL V. WATERPROOFING

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 3d01-1550

Case Date: 03/13/2002

Plaintiff: 01-1550 LEAL

Defendant: WATERPROOFING

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2002

SINECIO LEAL, JR., Appellant, vs. WATERPROOFING SYSTEMS OF MIAMI, INC., Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D01-1550 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 96-25530

Opinion filed March 6, 2002. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge. Chasin & Baron and Keith Chasin, for appellant. Richard A. Sherman (Fort Lauderdale); Alan L. Landsberg and Jorge Maxion (Hollywood), for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, SHEVIN, and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Sinecio Leal, the plaintiff below, appeals from an adverse final judgment in a personal injury action. Leal sued Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. ("Waterproofing") for neck and ankle injuries

allegedly

sustained

in

a

1996

automobile

accident.

Waterproofing

admitted liability and a jury rendered a defense verdict finding that Leal's claimed damages were not caused by the accident. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We find no error in the trial court's denial of Leal's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of whether Leal's claimed

injuries were caused by the accident. See Sparks-Book v. The Sports Authority, Inc., 699 So. 2d 767, 768 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("'Even with causation not at issue, plaintiff was still obligated to prove some connexity between the damages claimed and the [defendant's

tortious conduct].'" (quoting Rucker v. Garlock, Inc., 672 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996))). There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Leal's neck injuries preexisted the accident. See Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1993); Katz v. Ghodsi, 682 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). However, we agree with Leal that the trial court erred in

denying his motion for a directed verdict on the issue of recovery for diagnostic bills. See Sparks-Book v. The Sports Authority, Inc., 699 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("At a minimum, the plaintiff was entitled to recover testing for which those was medical expenses incurred to for any

diagnostic

reasonably

necessary

determine

whether the accident caused her injuries"); Martin v. Chapman, 780 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We find no merit in Leal's remaining points on appeal. See

Katz, 682 So. 2d at 587 (holding that plaintiff's motion for a new trial should have been denied because "it was solely for the jury to

-2-

resolve

these

conflicts

and

consider

the

weight

of

the

disputed

testimony"); Easkold v. Rhodes, 614 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1993) (holding medical that where to the the plaintiff doctors, gave the a materially was untruthful in

history

jury

justified

disregarding the medical expert's opinion testimony). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

-3-

Download 3d01-1550.pdf