Jurisdiction: Fourth District Court of Appeal, Florida
Case No.: 4D2023-2417
Lower Tribunal Case No.: 312020CA000638
Date: July 9, 2025
Lower Court: Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County, Judge Janet Carney Croom
Excluding Expert Testimony: A Premature Verdict in a Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Case
In a recent slip-and-fall premises liability case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed critical procedural missteps that ultimately compromised the plaintiff’s ability to fully present her case. In Aponte v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the appellate court reversed a trial court’s rulings that excluded the treating physician’s key testimony and granted directed verdicts on major damages claims. The court’s opinion serves as a stark reminder of how evidentiary errors and misapplied legal standards can skew jury outcomes in personal injury litigation.
The Injury and the Dispute
The case stemmed from a 2019 incident where Yaneira Aponte slipped on algae at a Wal-Mart garden center, sustaining injuries to her wrist, knee, and lower back. Wal-Mart admitted to partial negligence in maintaining the premises but disputed the extent and cause of Aponte’s injuries. After trial, the jury awarded her only $22,500 in damages, far less than she sought. Aponte appealed, arguing that key rulings by the trial court unfairly limited her evidence and contributed to the reduced award.
Treating Physician’s Testimony Excluded
Aponte’s treating orthopedic physician was expected to testify about the permanency of her injuries and the future treatments reasonably certain to be required — including a costly cartilage transplant and eventual knee replacement. Despite timely disclosure, the trial court struck portions of his testimony after concluding it violated the Binger v. King Pest Control standard, citing surprise and prejudice to the defense.
However, the appellate court found this application of Binger improper. The physician’s opinions were not a reversal of prior statements but were formed after treating and examining Aponte, which is permitted. The doctor’s updated prognosis, including cost estimates, was disclosed pre-trial through deposition, and any surprise to Wal-Mart was self-inflicted — the company waited until five days before trial to depose the doctor.
The appellate court noted that excluding the testimony of a treating physician — especially one who was the only medical witness on future damages — was an extreme and prejudicial sanction.
Legal Standard for Future Medical Expenses Misapplied
Compounding the error, the trial court excluded the testimony regarding future medical expenses because the physician could not confirm Aponte would definitively undergo the procedures. But Florida law does not require certainty — only a reasonable medical probability. The appellate court emphasized that expenses for future care are admissible when they are reasonably certain to occur, and treating physicians are permitted to base such opinions on medical records, exams, and standard practices.
Directed Verdicts on Key Damages
Adding further prejudice, the trial court granted directed verdicts against Aponte on claims for two prior surgeries and future pain and suffering. This ruling ignored substantial evidence: a diagnostic radiologist and the treating orthopedic doctor both linked Aponte’s injuries and surgeries to the fall with reasonable medical certainty. The court determined that the jury should have been allowed to weigh this evidence.
The appellate court reiterated that directed verdicts are rarely appropriate in negligence cases and should only be granted where no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Here, conflicting expert testimony clearly created questions of fact for the jury — not the judge — to resolve.
Reversal and New Trial Ordered
The cumulative effect of the evidentiary rulings and directed verdicts was to deprive Aponte of a fair trial. As a result, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the final judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, giving Aponte another chance to present her full case to a jury.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a significant example of how overly aggressive evidentiary exclusions and misapplied legal standards can lead to unfair trial outcomes. For personal injury attorneys, it underscores the importance of early and thorough witness disclosures — and of challenging erroneous trial court rulings that can gut a case before it reaches the jury.
The decision also reinforces the principle that treating physicians are not just witnesses to past care — they can offer forward-looking testimony when grounded in clinical experience and reasonable medical certainty. Ensuring plaintiffs have the opportunity to present this evidence is essential to the integrity of the jury trial process.
Today’s Insight
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.