John A. Miller v. Janay Conney

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a late-disclosed radiofrequency ablation cost estimate and related testimony concerning the plaintiff’s future medical expenses. Applying the Binger v. King Pest Control analysis, the court found that the evidence created unfair surprise and that the defendant lacked a sufficient opportunity to cure the prejudice. The court reversed the award for future medical expenses and remanded for a new trial limited to those damages, affirming the judgment in all other respects.

Holdings

1. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the RFA cost estimate and Dr. Saatman's corresponding testimony because the estimate was new evidence disclosed during trial after discovery had closed, creating surprise and prejudice under the Binger analysis.
2. A party seeking future medical expenses must present evidence from which the jury can determine the amount of those expenses with reasonable certainty; the undisclosed RFA estimate and related testimony could not properly serve as the sole proof of that amount under the circumstances presented.
3. The hearsay challenge was not preserved because Miller did not state hearsay as the specific legal ground for his trial objection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Binger v. King Pest Control by admitting a late-disclosed RFA cost estimate and related new testimony concerning future medical expenses.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying Miller's motion for a continuance to consult his expert about the late-disclosed cost estimate.
3. Whether the trial court erred by denying Miller's motion for a directed verdict regarding future medical expenses.
4. Whether the hearsay and personal-knowledge objections to the cost estimate were preserved for appellate review.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded