Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

381 So. 2d 376, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16314

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1980

DocketNo. PP-157

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 381 So. 2d 376 (Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 381 So. 2d 376, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16314 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

On plaintiff’s appeal from an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict against appellant’s claim for disability insurance benefits, we find no error in the trial court permitting a physician to express an opinion concerning the extent of appellant’s ability, despite a knee injury and some pain, to seek work in sedentary employment; no error in denying appellant’s motions for directed verdict and for new trial, there being credibility issues for the-jury; and no error in permitting cross-examination of appellant concerning her rehabilitation efforts, that being pertinent to the issue of whether she was permanently and totally disabled, as claimed. The trial court perhaps unduly restricted appellant’s redirect interrogation of her expert vocational counsellor concerning the job market in appellant’s small hometown, but the facts sought to be elicited were not proffered; moreover, the ruling is not shown to be harmful error in the context of the entire interrogation.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

On plaintiff’s appeal from an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict against appellant’s claim for disability insurance benefits, we find no error in the trial court permitting a physician to express an opinion concerning the extent of appellant’s ability, despite a knee injury and some pain, to seek work in sedentary employment; no error in denying appellant’s motions for directed verdict and for new trial, there being credibility issues for the-jury; and no error in permitting cross-examination of appellant concerning her rehabilitation efforts, that being pertinent to the issue of whether she was permanently and totally disabled, as claimed. The trial court perhaps unduly restricted appellant’s redirect interrogation of her expert vocational counsellor concerning the job market in appellant’s small hometown, but the facts sought to be elicited were not proffered; moreover, the ruling is not shown to be harmful error in the context of the entire interrogation.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 So. 2d 376, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-metropolitan-life-ins-co-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack