HAVEN, ET UX
v.
AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY CO., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court determined that a chiropractor can testify regarding whether a plaintiff meets the permanency threshold under Florida's No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment where medical evidence supported a claim of permanent injury.
A chiropractic physician can testify within his area of art and expertise regarding whether there is permanency to determine if a plaintiff meets the permanency threshold in Florida's No-Fault Law. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied because the affidavit of the treating chiropractor indicated the plaintiff suffered permanent injury from the accident.
[1] A chiropractic physician may testify regarding permanency of injury for purposes of meeting the threshold requirements of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act.
[2] A treating physician's affidavit stating an opinion of permanent injury is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment based on failure to meet the permanency thre…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a chiropractic physician can testify within an area of his art and expertise whether there is permanency so as to determine whether the plaintiff meets the permanency threshold in the Florida No-Fault Law”
Establishes the core holding that chiropractors are qualified to testify about permanency despite the statutory language requiring 'medical probability.'
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Haven was injured in an automobile accident. His treating chiropractor, Dr. Peter G. Fernandez, D.C., filed an affidavit opining that Haven suffe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard upon the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, motion for continuance and motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Peter G. Fernandez, D.G.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was based on two grounds — first, that there was no showing in the record that plaintiff, Gary Haven, had reached the threshold requirements of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, Florida Statutes 627.730 - 627.741, in that there was no showing he had medical bills in excess of $1,000 or permanent injury based on reasonable medical probability; and second, that testimony of a chiropractic physician as to permanency is not admissible under the requirements of §627.737(2) which requires reasonable medical probability, a chiropractor not being a medical physician.
The court having been advised by argument of counsel and the law, it is ordered and adjudged that a chiropractic physician can testify within an area of his art and expertise whether there is permanency so as to determine whether the plaintiff meets the permanency threshold in the Florida No-Fault Law!
It is further ordered and adjudged that, the áffidávii: of the treating physician in this case having been filed indicating that in his opinion the plaintiff has suffered permanent injury as a result *83of the accident, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.
It is further ordered and adjudged that defendants’ motion for continuance is granted, and the trial in this matter shall be continued to a later, trial docket.
It is further ordered and adjudged that defendants’ motion to strike the affidavit of Dr. Peter G. Fernandez, D.C., is denied.