Jung v. City of Sarasota

457 So. 2d 577, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2168, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15475
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 11, 1984·No. No. AY-155·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals an order denying payment of his medical bills. We affirm.

No medical bills or medical reports were introduced into evidence. There was some testimony as to the amount of the bills but it was vague, indefinite and inconclusive. The deputy commissioner’s (deputy) determination that this testimony should be rejected was correct. All doubt and uncertainty as to the amount of the bills could have and should have been removed by introducing the written bills into evidence or at least by clear and unequivocal testimony. American Grinding and Equipment v. Rodman, 411 So.2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Decks, Inc. of Florida v. Wright, 389 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The deputy’s order even recites that he reminded counsel for the claimant that neither the medical bills nor medical reports were in evidence and there was no excuse for the failure to introduce them into evidence.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

Jung v. City of Sarasota, 457 So. 2d 577, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2168, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15475 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

457 So. 2d 577 (Jung v. City of Sarasota) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chase v. Henkel & McCoy
562 So. 2d 831 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Glumb
523 So. 2d 1190 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Burroughs Corp. v. Glover
488 So. 2d 620 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)