Bassett v. Morine

── Bassett v. Morine ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ANNA K. BASSETT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PERRY JOSEPH MORINE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 2D2024-2283 May 29, 2026 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen M. Walker, Judge. Shea T. Moxon and Thomas J. Seider, Brannock Berman & Seider, Tampa; Kevin B. Woods, Woods Trial Law, Tampa, for Appellant/Cross- Appellee. Warren B. Kwavnick, The Law Office of Warren B. Kwavnick, PLLC, Pembroke Pines, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ATKINSON, Judge. Ms. Anna Bassett sued Mr. Perry Morine for negligence. The jury entered a verdict in favor of Ms. Bassett that included a damages award of $2,000,000 for future medical expenses. Mr. Morine moved for remittitur or new trial, and following a hearing, the trial court remitted the award to $1,274,433.71. Ms. Bassett rejected the remittitur and appealed. We affirm and write only to explain our holding regarding the issue of remittitur. Ms. Bassett testified that, as a result of the accident, she suffered injuries to her neck that inhibited her range of motion and caused her pain. As part of Ms. Bassett's rehabilitation and pain mitigation protocol, she underwent medial branch blocks ("blocks") and radio frequency ablations ("ablations"). Because blocks and ablations are used in combination to mitigate pain, they are hereafter referred to collectively as the "treatments."1 These treatments are the subject of the parties' dispute over Ms. Bassett's future medical expenses award. During trial, there was testimony that Ms. Bassett would need to undergo the treatments anywhere from every six months to once every other year, for the rest of her life. The parties submitted numerous joint exhibits, which included 1 As explained by Dr. Sweeney, one of Ms. Bassett's expert witnesses and treating physicians, blocks are diagnostic procedures that involve injecting medication into the patient to locate the source of pain. Dr. Sweeney testified that once blocks have been used to identify nerves that are causing pain, the ablation procedure is implemented by using a heated needle to burn the problematic nerves, thereby causing them to cease functioning. The burning of nerves decreases pain in the patient, though it is possible for the nerves to regenerate, causing pain to return. At times, the parties refer to the collective treatments as simply "RFAs" or other singular nouns or abbreviations. The record is best read to mean that the parties are referring to both radiofrequency ablations and medial branch blocks in doing so. According to Dr. Sweeney's description, the treatments must be administered in tandem—performing only blocks would be to only perform diagnostic treatments without addressing the actual symptoms, while performing only ablations would be to try to address Ms. Bassett's symptoms without diagnosing the particular nerves at issue. Thus, this opinion refers to the treatments collectively, even though the record sometimes refers to only singular procedures. 2 medical records pertaining to Ms. Bassett's treatment. Those records included a statement from the Ramos Center, indicating that one round of treatments actually performed on Ms. Bassett had cost $15,639.89. During closing argument, Ms. Bassett's counsel relied on the Ramos Center statement to argue that one round of treatments costs "just over $15,000." Ms. Bassett's life care plan indicated that she was expected to live for "another 57.2 years" and that the present value of her life care plan—containing only one round of treatments—was $380,132. The plan only included one round of treatments because the planner was only aware of one round o