Case Name: Heather CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 568 F. App'x 886
Docket Number: No. 13-10810
Parties: Heather CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 886–886

Head Matter:
Heather CASTELLANOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10810.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 17, 2014.
Andrew A. Harris, Adam J. Richardson, Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., Jason D. Weisser, Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser & Zoeller, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Glen B. Levine, Law Offices of Anidjar & Levine, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlton A. Bober, Nicolette N. John, Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A., Hollywood, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL, District Judge.
Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Two issues are presented on appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict for plaintiff, in this diversity case, springing from a slip-and-fall at one of defendant's stores. After hearing oral argument and after deliberation, we conclude that no reversible error is present.
About Defendant's Renewed Motion for JMOL, we conclude that the record evidence—viewed in plaintiffs favor—was sufficient for the verdict : evidence including the approximately two-foot size of the puddle of bleach, the distinctive odor of bleach, the presence of tracks not made by plaintiff or her husband through the puddle, and the proximity within about ten feet of the puddle of defendant's employees.
About the exclusion of a purported expert's opinion, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion, especially given the expert's broad lack of knowledge of the background and underpinning of the information in the DRG on which the expert relied considerably.
AFFIRMED.
. Furthermore, no new trial was demanded.
. We do not read State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 81 So.3d 538 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) to demand admission of the proposed expert testimony in this case. Bowling seems to decide a materially different case. For example, Bowling seems to be about, to a significant degree, an argument that the medical services billed did not reflect medical services actually delivered according to the treatment records and not about mainly a conflict over the reasonableness of charges for medical services, assumed to have been delivered.