Rasinski v. McCoy

8 Citing cases

  1. Vickers v. Thomas

    237 So. 3d 412 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    To establish a claim for loss of future earning capacity, a plaintiff must introduce "reasonably certain evidence that the capacity to labor has been diminished." Rasinski v. McCoy, 227 So.3d 201, 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (quoting Hubbs v. McDonald, 517 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) ). Here, the evidence presented revolved around Thomas's fear of losing her job rather than any diminished capacity to continue her employment; such fear is speculative and cannot serve as a proper basis for these damages.

  2. Bowers v. Tillman

    323 So. 3d 322 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    But the irony in that message is not lost on this Court, considering we have repeatedly criticized Mr. Byrd's own unprofessional conduct in prior cases, particularly as it relates to his closing arguments. See Vickers v Thomas, 237 So. 3d 412, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Rasinski v. McCoy, 227 So. 3d 201, 202 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; see also, Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694, 695-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (noting that Mr. Byrd's antics could be characterized as ‘Beavis–and–Butthead’ like, or to put it in milder terms, uncivilized."). Unfortunately, our affirmance in these two cases may be viewed as enabling the very conduct denounced by the trial judges involved and set out in the majority opinions.

  3. Cemoni v. Ratner

    322 So. 3d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    But the irony in that message is not lost on this Court, considering we have repeatedly criticized Mr. Byrd's own unprofessional conduct in prior cases, particularly as it relates to his closing arguments. See Vickers v. Thomas, 237 So. 3d 412, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Rasinski v. McCoy, 227 So. 3d 201, 202 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; see also, Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694, 695-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (noting that Mr. Byrd's antics could be characterized as ‘Beavis–and–Butthead’ like, or to put it in milder terms, uncivilized."). Unfortunately, our affirmance in these two cases may be viewed as enabling the very conduct denounced by the trial judges involved and set out in the majority opinions.

  4. Collazo v. Progressive Select Ins. Co.

    Civil Action 20-25302-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2022)

    As such, the verdict must be adjusted to $834,220.18. See Fla. Stat. § 768.76(1) (requiring verdict set-offs for any amounts paid by collateral sources); Rasinski v. McCoy, 227 So.3d 201, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (treating a collateral source set-off as distinct from remitting the verdict).

  5. Kings Reyes Transp. v. Baker

    No. 6D23-2615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2024)

    (footnote omitted)); Rasinski v. McCoy, 227 So.3d 201, 202 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("We emphasize that our affirmance on this issue should not be interpreted as condoning plaintiff's counsel's conduct in his closing argument.").

  6. Rhoades v. Rodriguez

    359 So. 3d 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Attorney Byrd has also been criticized by our court for unprofessional conduct. See Vickers v. Thomas, 237 So.3d 412, 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Rasinski v. McCoy, 227 So.3d 201, 202 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So.2d 694, 695-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). For the benefit of the members of the Bar, we call attention to the two particular instances where defense counsel's utilization of improper discovery techniques potentially serve as a basis for disciplinary sanctions.

  7. Chaudhry v. Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt

    305 So. 3d 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 15 times
    In Chaudhry, the Florida appellate court held that a FWA plaintiff “must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action.

    "The Florida Supreme Court has cautioned that a plaintiff may recover damages for loss of earning capacity only ‘when such damages are established with reasonable certainty.’ " Rasinski v. McCoy , 227 So. 3d 201, 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (quoting Auto-Owners Ins. v. Tompkins , 651 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla. 1995) ). While the fact that a plaintiff is making as much or more than he was making prior to an injury does not preclude him from asking for an instruction on loss of future earning capacity, "it certainly makes it more difficult" to show economic loss.

  8. Nieves v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    248 So. 3d 240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

    Moreover, it is common for our court and our sister courts to limit a new trial to one item of damages in the event one of the parties rejects an additur or remittitur. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Harmon, 237 So.3d 423, 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; Vickers v. Thomas, 237 So.3d 412, 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), reh'g denied (Jan. 17, 2018); Rasinski v. McCoy, 227 So.3d 201, 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Brewer, 191 So.3d 508, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; Olen Props. Corp. v. Cancel, 178 So.3d 437, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).--------