Law Offices of Robin Bresky Helps Injured Plaintiff Prevail in Appeal by Defendant Who Sought New Trial

Car Accident

The firm’s client, who was Plaintiff in a personal injury suit, recently prevailed in an appeal by the Defendant from an order denying the Defendant’s motion for new trial. The action arose from personal injuries sustained by our client in 2008, while driving in Miami-Dade County.  As our client cleared the intersection, a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction on that street made an improper turn and violently struck our client’s vehicle on the driver’s side door.

The impact was so severe that our client’s vehicle was pushed across the right through lane into a third-party vehicle parked on the side of the road, and caused our client’s head to shatter the driver’s side window.  Our client suffered several cervical disc herniations, one of which was compressing her spinal cord, and ultimately underwent three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with grafts, plates, and screws.

Our client brought a negligence suit for her injuries, and the case went to trial.  Before trial, the Defendant admitted negligence and causation of the subject accident.  Damages, however, were hotly contested.  In August 2015, the jury returned a substantial verdict in our client’s favor.

The Defendant then filed a Motion for New Trial, which argued several grounds:  (1) that our client’s trial counsel (attorneys Ramon Rubio of the Law Office of Ramon Rubio, P. L. and David Strong of the Law Office of David R. Strong, P.A.) had made improper “Golden Rule” arguments; (2) that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of a hospital employee, which the Defendant sought to introduce to prove that the amount charged for our client’s surgery and hospital stay was unreasonable; and (3) that the trial court improperly excluded the portion of the defense compulsory medical examination doctor’s testimony addressing the reasonableness of our client’s past medical bills.  Trial counsel (attorneys Rubio and Strong) had successfully sought to exclude that opinion, since it was not previously disclosed, or expressed in any of the doctor’s reports.

In September 2015, the Defendant’s Motion for New Trial was denied.  In June 2016, Final Judgment was entered in our Client’s favor.  The Defendant then filed an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal.

Shortly before our client’s Answer Brief was due, trial counsel sought help from the firm’s Of Counsel attorney, Michele K. Feinzig, who came on board to provide appellate support.  Attorney Feinzig worked with Attorney Rubio to draft our client’s Answer Brief, which needed to address the five arguments presented by the Defendant in the Initial Brief:  (1) exclusion of the compulsory medical examination doctor’s testimony as to reasonableness of the past medical bills; (2) exclusion of the hospital employee’s testimony as to reasonableness of the hospital bill; (3) improper closing argument; (4) cumulative effect of all purported errors; and (5) failure to grant remittitur.

Attorney Feinzig did extensive research for the Answer Brief, drafted the standard of review for each issue, drafted several of the legal arguments for the Answer Brief, provided analysis and suggestions for those portions of the Answer Brief being written by Attorney Rubio, and drafted arguments distinguishing case law cited in the Initial Brief.  In addition, Attorney Feinzig determined that some of the Defendant’s arguments on appeal had not been properly preserved, so she drafted arguments for the Answer Brief explaining the law of preservation of error and urging the appellate court to reject those arguments that were not preserved.

After the Answer Brief was filed, the Defendant did not file a Reply Brief.  The Third District then issued a per curiam affirmance (PCA), affirming the denial of a new trial and the Final Judgment for our client.  The Defendant filed a motion for rehearing, and Attorney Feinzig drafted a response to that motion.  The day after the response was filed, the Third District issued an order denying rehearing.

With the Final Judgment having been affirmed, our client looks forward to obtaining recovery of all that she is owed for her serious injuries.