JEANNETTE GUTIERREZ v. OSCAR DE LEON ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed January 5, 2022.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    Nos. 3D20-810 & 3D20-1266
    Lower Tribunal No. 18-38944
    ________________
    Jeannette Gutierrez,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Oscar De Leon, et al.,
    Appellees.
    Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alexander
    Bokor, Judge.
    Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Roy D. Wasson; Fournaris &
    Sanet, P.A., and Theodore J. Fournaris, for appellant.
    Conroy Simberg, and Hinda Klein (Hollywood), for appellees.
    Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff below, Jeannette Gutierrez
    (“Ms. Gutierrez”), appeals from (1) a final judgment finding that she “takes
    nothing from this action” and the defendants below, Oscar De Leon (“Mr.
    De Leon”) and Florida Westside Trucking Corp. (“Florida Westside
    Trucking”) (collectively, “Defendants”), “shall go hence without a day,”
    which judgment was entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict and the set off of
    the PIP benefits received by Ms. Gutierrez (“Final Judgment”); and (2) an
    agreed order granting attorney’s fees and costs to Florida Westside
    Trucking pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of
    Civil Procedure 1.442. We affirm, in part; reverse, in part; and remand with
    instructions.
    In October 2017, Ms. Gutierrez was involved in a motor vehicle
    accident with a dump truck. Ms. Gutierrez filed a negligence action against
    the driver of the dump truck, Mr. De Leon, and the owner of the dump truck,
    Florida Westside Trucking. Ms. Gutierrez alleged that Mr. De Leon failed to
    yield the right of way, causing the dump truck he was driving to collide into
    her vehicle, and as a result she sustained permanent injuries.           The
    Defendants raised the affirmative defense of comparative fault and
    challenged whether Ms. Gutierrez’s injuries, including two herniated discs,
    were caused by the accident.
    The case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict finding
    2
    (1) both Ms. Gutierrez and Mr. De Leon negligent, assigning 80% of the
    fault to Ms. Gutierrez and 20% of the fault to Mr. De Leon; (2) Ms. Gutierrez
    sustained damages in the amount of $9,838.61 for past medical expenses
    and $1,000 for past lost earnings; and (3) Ms. Gutierrez did not suffer a
    permanent injury or disfigurement as a result of the accident.
    Ms. Gutierrez filed a motion for new trial, arguing, among other
    things, that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the
    evidence. The trial court denied Ms. Gutierrez’s motion for new trial. The
    Defendants moved to set off the jury’s verdict by the PIP benefits received
    by Ms. Gutierrez. By agreed order, the trial court granted the motion for
    PIP setoff. The trial court then entered the Final Judgment, which provides
    that Ms. Gutierrez “takes nothing from this action” and the Defendants
    “shall go hence without a day.”      Thereafter, the trial court entered an
    agreed order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Florida Westside
    Trucking pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of
    Civil Procedure 1.442. This appeal followed.
    In her appeal from the Final Judgment, Ms. Gutierrez has raised
    three issues. Based on our review of the trial transcript and the evidence
    introduced during trial, we conclude that the following two issues do not
    merit discussion: (1) whether the jury’s finding that Ms. Gutierrez was 80%
    3
    at fault and Mr. De Leon was only 20% at fault was against the manifest
    weight of the evidence; and (2) whether the jury’s finding that Ms. Gutierrez
    did not sustain a permanent injury or disfigurement was against the
    manifest weight of the evidence.
    The third issue raised by Ms. Gutierrez has merit. Ms. Gutierrez
    argues that the jury’s award of $9,836.61 for past medical expenses is
    against the manifest weight of the evidence. Based on our review of the
    trial testimony and the billing statements introduced into evidence at trial,
    we agree.
    Here, Ms. Gutierrez introduced into evidence medical bills totaling
    over $251,000, with over $200,000 relating to the neck surgery performed
    by Dr. Chin for Ms. Gutierrez’s herniated discs.       The jury’s award of
    $9,836.61 reflects that it determined that Ms. Gutierrez suffered injuries as
    a result of the accident that required medical services. See Cabrera v.
    Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 
    314 So. 3d 570
    , 573-74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
    The record reflects that there was conflicting evidence as to whether the
    herniated discs were caused by the accident, and whether the medical
    expenses relating to the surgery by Dr. Chin were excessive. However, the
    defense’s expert, Dr. Jarolem, acknowledged that it was reasonable for Ms.
    Gutierrez to go to the emergency room and to receive other services
    4
    shortly after the accident in order to address her pain.        Further, the
    defense’s billing expert did not challenge the reasonableness of these bills,
    which totaled over $48,000. Thus, the jury’s award of only $9,836.61 is
    against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, we reverse the
    jury’s award for past economic damages, and remand for a new trial on all
    past economic damages requested by Ms. Gutierrez. See Aircraft Serv.
    Int’l, Inc. v. Jackson, 
    768 So. 2d 1094
    , 1096-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
    (reversing and remanding for a new trial on damages where the award of
    damages was not supported by the evidence).
    Finally, as we are reversing for a new trial as to all economic
    damages, we reverse the agreed order granting attorney’s fees and costs
    to Florida Westside Trucking, with instructions for the trial court to
    reconsider Florida Westside Trucking’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs
    following the new trial on all past economic damages.
    Reversed and remanded with instructions.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-0810

Filed Date: 1/5/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/5/2022