The Florida District Court of Appeal recently upheld a ruling in a personal injury case involving a car accident. The court's decision affects how evidence is presented in trials and clarifies the rules surrounding hearsay evidence. This ruling is significant for future personal injury cases in Florida.
The case, Norma I. Velez Rivera v. Leidimar C. Lopes (Docket No. 4D2025-0675), centers around a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 19, 2023. Velez Rivera was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Hector Manuel Santana when their vehicle collided with Lopes' vehicle. Following the accident, Rivera filed a negligence lawsuit against Lopes, claiming she sustained permanent injuries. Lopes countered by identifying Santana as a nonparty at fault.
The dispute arose during the trial regarding the admissibility of certain medical evidence. Rivera's treatment records from Family Medical Group included a notation of a four-percent permanent whole-body impairment rating, which Lopes sought to exclude as inadmissible hearsay. The trial court agreed and redacted the notation from the jury's view. Rivera did not contest the hearsay ruling during the trial or on appeal.
During closing arguments, Lopes' attorney stated that there was no evidence from Family Medical Group indicating that Rivera had a permanent injury. Rivera's counsel objected, arguing that this statement was misleading since the excluded evidence did indicate a permanent injury. The trial court offered a curative instruction, but Rivera rejected it and sought to reopen the evidence, which the court denied.
Ultimately, the jury found that both Lopes and Santana were at fault for the accident, awarding Rivera $70,040.80 in past medical expenses but not finding that she sustained a permanent injury. Following the trial, Lopes moved to reduce the verdict amount, which the court granted, resulting in a final judgment of $10,834.34 for Rivera. Rivera subsequently appealed the decision.
The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the hearsay evidence and allowing Lopes to argue that no evidence of a permanent injury existed. The court stated, “The evidence was (properly) excluded from the jury, and so for the purposes of the jury’s consideration, the evidence did not exist.” The ruling emphasized that while Lopes' phrasing in closing arguments was not entirely accurate, it did not constitute a prejudicial error that would warrant a new trial.
This ruling has implications for future personal injury cases, particularly regarding how attorneys can address the absence of excluded evidence in their arguments. The court clarified that it is permissible to point out the absence of evidence that has been properly excluded. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to evidentiary rules and the discretion of trial courts in managing the admissibility of evidence.
Going forward, this ruling may affect how attorneys approach closing arguments in similar cases, ensuring that they remain within the bounds of what is admissible. It sets a precedent that allows attorneys to argue the absence of evidence that has been excluded, which could influence strategies in personal injury litigation.
As for the next steps, Rivera has the option to file a motion for rehearing regarding the court's decision. However, it remains unclear if any related cases are pending that could further impact this area of law.