Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida personal injury case that was brought by a woman who suffered worsening symptoms of a pre-existing condition after she received a chemical peel procedure from the defendant spa. The case required the court to determine if the lower court was proper in excluding a defense expert witness and entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower court was within its discretion and affirmed the verdict below.
The plaintiff arranged to have the defendant spa perform a chemical peel on her face. The plaintiff, who suffered from rosacea, filled out an intake form indicating that she had rosacea. However, the aesthetician failed to read the form before she conducted the peel.
The aesthetician later testified that, had she been aware the plaintiff suffered from rosacea, she would not have performed the peel. The aesthetician admitted that not reading the form was negligent, but she claimed that the plaintiff was also negligent. As it turns out, the plaintiff had not been to see a doctor for her rosacea for two years, and she had stopped taking all prescribed medication for her condition.
In support of their position, the defense planned on calling an expert witness who would testify that the plaintiff suffered from mild rosacea at the time of trial and that the plaintiff’s rosacea at the time of trial was not caused by the chemical peel. However, the expert only reviewed the plaintiff’s photograph from after the incident and did not have the opportunity to see what the plaintiff’s rosacea looked like prior to the chemical peel.
The plaintiff asked the court to prevent the expert from testifying. The plaintiff argued that the expert’s failure to review pre-incident photographs called into question his conclusion. The court agreed and precluded the testimony. Once the judge made that ruling, the plaintiff then successfully moved for a directed verdict. The defendant appealed.
On appeal, the defendant claimed that the lower court was wrong to preclude the expert’s testimony. The defendant argued that any flaw in the expert’s conclusion was relevant to the weight the expert’s testimony was afforded, but it should still be admitted. The court disagreed, explaining that the expert’s failure to examine the plaintiff’s photographs prior to the incident resulted in any conclusion being based more on speculation than fact. Thus, the court upheld the lower court’s decision and subsequent jury verdict.
Have You Been Injured in a South Florida Accident?
If you or a loved one has recently been injured during a spa procedure or other cosmetic procedure, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. The dedicated South Florida personal injury attorneys at the law firm of Cecere Santana have decades of collective experience assisting victims and their families with pursuing the compensation they deserve. We represent clients across South Florida in all types of personal injury cases. Call 800-753-5529 to schedule your free consultation today.
More Blog Posts:
Court Finds Golf Cart Accident Was Covered Under Plaintiff’s Insurance Policy, Cecere Santana Injury Lawyers Blog, published February 9, 2018.
Court Finds Student Attending School in Another State Is Covered under Parents’ Florida Insurance Policy, Cecere Santana Injury Lawyers Blog, published January 10, 2018.