From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Newman

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 13, 1978
363 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Summary

In Howard v. Newman, 363 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this court interpreted "medically or scientifically demonstrable" to require that the plaintiff show objective signs of injury.

Summary of this case from Snowden v. Sprouse

Opinion

No. JJ-317.

October 13, 1978.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County, R. Hudson Oliff, J.

Elliott Zisser, of Zisser, Robison Spohrer, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Stephen E. Day, of Matthews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellee.


In this case of first impression we are asked to determine whether the phrase "medically or scientifically demonstrable" in Section 627.737(2)(e), Florida Statutes, requires objective signs of an injury or allows subjective statements of pain as proof of injury.

The Second District Court of Appeal in Johnson v. Phillips, 345 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), determined that the term "permanent injury" in Section 627.737(2), Florida Statutes, includes "permanent subjective complaints of pain from an initial organic injury." That holding is not dispositive of the issue here because of the wording of the statute. Section 627.737(2)(e), Florida Statutes, provides for recovery by the plaintiff for:

"A serious, nonpermanent injury which has a material degree of bearing on the injured person's ability to resume his normal activity and lifestyle during all or substantially all of the 90 day period after the occurrence of the injury, and the effects of which are medically or scientifically demonstrable at the end of such period."

In that subparagraph, the Legislature has chosen to insert the qualifying phrase "the effects of which are medically or scientifically demonstrable." We do not believe that that phrase is intended to be without meaning or effect. Thus, we interpret the phrase "medically or scientifically demonstrable" to require the plaintiff to show objective signs of injury.

In light of this interpretation, we affirm the action of the trial court dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to meet the threshold requirements of Section 627.737(2).

SMITH, Acting C.J., ERVIN, J., and MITCHELL, HENRY CLAY, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Howard v. Newman

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 13, 1978
363 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

In Howard v. Newman, 363 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this court interpreted "medically or scientifically demonstrable" to require that the plaintiff show objective signs of injury.

Summary of this case from Snowden v. Sprouse
Case details for

Howard v. Newman

Case Details

Full title:LILLIE G. HOWARD AND LANDLEY V. HOWARD, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Oct 13, 1978

Citations

363 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing Cases

White v. Arvanitis

This Court has interpreted "medically or scientifically demonstrable" to require a showing of objective signs…

Sullivan v. Price

In this case, the testimony of Price and of his co-workers and supervisors of his continuing inability to…