A Florida court recently ruled on a personal injury case involving a car crash, clarifying how a new law affects similar future cases. The decision comes from the District Court of Appeal of Florida in the case of Christopher M. Unsworth v. Brian A. Barsoumian, docket number 2D2024-2962, filed on November 13, 2026. The ruling addresses the application of section 768.0427 of the Florida Statutes, which alters how medical expenses can be presented in court.

This case matters because it sets a precedent for how courts will interpret new laws regarding personal injury claims, specifically those related to medical expenses and the admissibility of insurance information. The outcome could influence how similar cases are handled in the future, affecting both plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury lawsuits.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Christopher M. Unsworth and Brian A. Barsoumian. The dispute arose from a car accident on April 18, 2020, when Barsoumian's vehicle struck Unsworth's vehicle twice on Interstate 275 in Tampa, Florida. Unsworth sustained injuries and subsequently sued Barsoumian for negligence on September 25, 2020. Barsoumian admitted liability for the crash, which led to the trial focusing on the extent of Unsworth's damages.

Before the trial, Barsoumian sought to introduce evidence regarding Unsworth's past and future medical expenses based on a new law, House Bill 837, which included section 768.0427. This law was enacted to change Florida's civil tort system, including how medical expenses are treated in court. Unsworth opposed this motion, arguing that the law should not apply to his case since it was filed before the law's effective date of March 24, 2023. Despite this, the trial court ruled that the new law applied and imposed additional burdens on Unsworth to prove his medical expenses.

The Ruling

The court ruled that section 768.0427 only applies to causes of action filed after its effective date, which was not the case for Unsworth's lawsuit. The judges affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's order granting a new trial. The opinion stated, "We conclude that section 768.0427(2) applies only to causes of action filed after its effective date, which Unsworth's cause of action was not, and that the trial court erred not granting a new trial on all issues." The judges involved in this opinion were Judge Guard, Judge Labrit, and Judge Khouzam.

Additionally, the court found that the trial court's decision to limit the new trial to past and future medical expenses was an abuse of discretion. The judges emphasized that causation and permanency are intertwined with damages, meaning that a new trial should encompass all relevant issues, not just the medical expenses.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future personal injury cases in Florida. It clarifies that the new law regarding the admissibility of collateral source evidence only applies to cases filed after its effective date. This means that plaintiffs who filed their claims before March 24, 2023, like Unsworth, will not be subjected to the new evidentiary rules that could potentially limit their ability to recover damages.

The decision also highlights the importance of how medical expenses are presented in court. By requiring a new trial on all issues, including causation and permanency, the court ensures that juries can make informed decisions based on a complete picture of the case. This could lead to more favorable outcomes for plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits, as they will not be restricted by the new statute that was not intended to apply retroactively.

What's Next

The case is set for a new trial where all aspects of Unsworth's claim will be reconsidered. Both parties may have the option to appeal this ruling further, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending appeals or related cases.