Articles Posted in Litigation

Parties to legal actions should always assume that their social media (e.g., Facebook; Twitter) postings will be discovered (discovery is allowed by FRCP 1.350; Discovery of Facebook Content in Florida Cases, 31 No. 2 Trial Advoc. Q 14 (Spring 2012)) and used against them by the other side if helpful. Postings can be used to contradict assertions made in a legal case and sometimes lead to the outright dismissal of actions by the court based on fraud.

However, hurdles must be overcome to get postings into evidence. Among the hurdles:

Finding and Preserving the Social Media Evidence

• Once we find useful postings by surfing the Internet, we save link addresses, print pages, and take iPad screen shots by simultaneously pressing both of the device’s power switches.
• Preservation of evidence letters can also be sent to those who own and or control the site to prevent spoilation of the evidence through the innocent or purposeful removal of content. Surprisingly, parties are not obligated to preserve evidence without a specific request. See, Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., So.3d , 37 FLW D1578 (Fla. 2nd DCA 6-20-2012).
• Formal discovery, pursuant to FRCP 1.310, 1.340, and 1.350, can be used to identify websites with potentially valuable information. Request from the respondent: websites the respondent uses to communicate with others; website account information such as account holder and user name; respondent’s email addresses, phone number, home address; printouts of account information and screen shots.
• Subpoenas can also be issued to website administrators, like Facebook and Twitter. (The particular knotty issues involved in gathering information from administrators is beyond the scope of this blog.)
• Another source of information is the Wayback Machine. This is a service that allows people to surf more than 150 billion pages in the Internet Archive’s Web archive.

Legal Hurdles
Continue reading

Accident victims often require medical attention. Medical malpractice sometimes makes their medical conditions worse, compounding the initial injuries with additional medical expenses and pain and suffering.

When the initial injuries are caused by the negligence of a third party, the victim is entitled to be compensated by the third party for both the initial injuries and the enhanced injuries resulting from the medical negligence.

In Dungan v. Ford, 632 So. 2d 159 (Fla 1st DCA 1994), the trial court allowed the Defendant to present expert testimony that a surgeon should not have performed a percutaneous diskectomy which resulted in more pain, suffering and expenses. The trial judge’s ruling was appealed. The appellate court held that the trial judge was wrong:

“It is well-established that a wrongdoer is liable for the ultimate negligence on the part of a physician who has treated an injury in such a way that the treatment may have increased the damage which otherwise would have followed from the original wrong. Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1977); Davidson v. Gaillard, supra; Rucks v. Pushman, 541 So.2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 549 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1989); 57 Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 149, and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 (1965). Cf. Barrios v. Darrach, 629 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).”

One of the primary responsibilities of personal injury attorneys who represent Plaintiffs, those injured by the negligence of others, is to recover past and future medical expenses.

Recovering the past medical expenses requires proof that the charges are reasonable, related to the accident, and necessary. See Garrett v. Morris Kirschman & Co., Inc., 336 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1976).

Interestingly, while expert medical testimony is required to prove the relationship between the accident and the injuries, expert testimony is not always required to prove that the charges are reasonable and necessary. See, Id., and Albertson’s, Inc. v. Brady, 475 So.2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1986).

Individuals seriously injured through the negligence of others often require medical care and treatment long after the case is resolved. Settlements and jury verdicts must take these future medical expenses into account.

Some individuals harmed through the negligence of others are eligible for medical care through governmental or charitable services for a pre-existing disability unrelated to the tort claim. The most common of these services is Medicare.

Governmental and charitable reimbursements are always a fraction of a medical provider’s usual and customary charges. While the services may cover medical expenses related to the accident, there are no guarantees as to what will be covered and for how long. Given these factors, should juries be allowed to consider evidence of the reduced rates in calculating future medical expenses.

The answer in Florida appears to be Yes.

In State Farm v. Joerg, the trial court did not allow State Farm to introduce evidence that Joerg’s future medical expenses might be reduced under the Medicare program. The trial court’s decision was reversed on appeal.

Relying on Florida Physician’s Insurance Reciprocal v. Stanley, 452 So. 2d 514 (1984), a Florida Supreme Court case, Florida’s 2nd DCA held that since Joerg did not earn the Medicare benefit, the jury should be allowed to consider Medicare’s rates in calculating future medical expenses.
Continue reading

Expert testimony plays a major role in almost every civil and criminal legal case. In Florida state courts expert testimony is governed by sections 90.702-90.706, Florida Statutes. The goal of the statutes is to insure fairness and impartiality in the trial of cases. The standard for when expert testimony is allowed is set forth in

Individuals in Florida under 18 years of age, considered minors, do not have the legal capacity to settle personal injury claims or control the settlement proceeds. Minors are typically represented in their cases by one or both parents, who, by operation of law, are their legal guardians. In the absence of a parent or where the suitability of a parent is in question, a court can appoint someone else. In some instances, another person, like a grandparent, has already been appointed legal guardian by a court. The legal guardian chooses the lawyer who will handle the personal injury case.

Whether and to what extent further court involvement is required, depends on for how much money the case is settled. In some instances the legal guardian can settle the case without court intervention, while, in others, the court becomes deeply involved. Court involvement adds delay and costs. What follows is a chart setting forth the requirements:

Court Approval of Settlement Required:

• Gross Settlement is $15,000 or less – No, unless a lawsuit has been filed, then yes. Sections 744.301(2) & 744.387(3)(a) Florida Statutes.

  Court approval is obtained by filing a Petition for Approval of Minor’s Settlement with the Court. The Petition must contain details of the case regarding the issues of liability and damages, the amount of the settlement, and the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs. In many instances, the Court will approve the settlement without a hearing.

• Gross Settlement is greater than $15,000, but less than $50,000 – Yes. Section 744.387(3)(a).
• Gross Settlement in excess of $50,000 – Yes. Section 744.387.

Need Legal Guardianship/Guardian of the Property Appointed:

• Gross Settlement is $15,000 or less – No.
• Gross Settlement is greater than $15,000, but less than $50,000 – Yes, but only if the Net settlement (after gross settlement is reduced by attorney’s fees and costs) exceeds $15,000. Section 744.387(2).
• Gross Settlement in excess of $50,000 – Yes, but only if the Net settlement exceeds $15,000. Section 744.387(2).

The guardian of the property, usually the legal guardian, is responsible for signing releases and collecting the net settlement proceeds. However, the court retains sole jurisdiction to determine the allocation and use of the minor’s money, including as to how it should be invested for safekeeping until the minor reaches the age of majority. Until majority, the legal guardian needs court approval to touch the minor’s money. The Court is supposed to consider what is in the best interest of the minor when determining if or how the proceeds can be used.
Continue reading