Summary
In North Broward, this court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to permit a defendant to introduce evidence on the cost of an annuity to fund future medical expenses.
Summary of this case from Gold, Vann White, P.A. v. DeBerryOpinion
No. 90-2015.
March 11, 1992. Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc and Certification Denied April 14, 1992.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, J. Cail Lee, J.
Joseph S. Kashi of Conrad, Scherer James, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin Perwin, P.A., Miami, for appellees.
This case stems from terrible injuries to a sixteen-month-old boy, for which the hospital concedes liability but argues the trial court erred in not permitting it to introduce evidence on the cost of an annuity to fund future medical expenses. We affirm.
Evidence of the cost of an annuity to compute present value has been admitted in several Florida cases involving loss of future earning capacity, loss of support which dependents would have derived from the decedent, and in wrongful death actions. See Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918 (1932); Florida Railway Navigation Co. v. Webster, 25 Fla. 394, 5 So. 714 (1889); Bould v. Touchette, 349 So.2d 1181 (1977). However, there is no Florida case which has authorized the jury to utilize an annuity approach in determining future medical damages, though some out-of-state decisions have so held.
See Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 6.10, which includes "future medical expenses" when considering reduction of damages to present value.
For example, a federal district court in Maryland authorized the use of the cost of annuity in a future medical expense situation. Ramrattan v. Burger King Co., 656 F. Supp. 522 (D.Md. 1987). However, Ramrattan involved a Maryland statute which specifically directed juries to itemize the monetary award for "future medical expenses" when considering the use of annuities. There is no comparable statute in Florida and we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion in ruling as he did.
We do not address the question of what our decision would have been had the trial judge admitted the annuity evidence. That issue is not before us now.
We find no other reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
FARMER, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
Since, as the majority opinion indicates, the present law in Florida supports the admission of evidence of the cost of annuities as one way to compute the present value of future economic damages, I believe we are compelled to hold that the trial court erred in excluding such evidence here with reference to future medical expenses.
I can see no valid basis for allowing evidence of the cost of annuities for loss of income in the future, but not allowing annuity evidence for covering medical expenses to be incurred in the future. In both instances, the jury is faced with the task of calculating what sum of money awarded today will provide the injured person with the money to either replace lost income or to pay for medical treatment needed in a distant year.
It may well be that the cost of annuities will not be the fairest or most reasonable way of assuring future compensation. However, that is the stuff that trials are made of. We permit the litigants to present competent and relevant evidence on all sides of the issue, and leave it to them to convince the trier of fact of the best means of assuring that a deserving claimant is fairly compensated. We are faced with precedent that allows annuity evidence on future economic losses, and I believe we are bound by that precedent.