Case Name: Verna STEVENS, Appellant, v. MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and Sayed George Deeb, d/b/a Swifty Enterprises, Limited, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-03-10
Citations: 395 So. 2d 1206
Docket Number: No. 80-2074
Parties: Verna STEVENS, Appellant, v. MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and Sayed George Deeb, d/b/a Swifty Enterprises, Limited, Appellees.
Judges: Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 395
Pages: 1206–1207

Head Matter:
Verna STEVENS, Appellant, v. MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and Sayed George Deeb, d/b/a Swifty Enterprises, Limited, Appellees.
No. 80-2074.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 10, 1981.
Rehearing Denied April 14, 1981.
Keyfetz & Poses and Jay Halpern, Miami, for appellant.
Dolan, Fertig & Curtis and David William Boone, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Verna Stevens, age 65, fell and broke her wrist in the defendant's laundromat. She incurred $600 in medical bills, neither the reasonableness nor necessity of which were challenged. She quite obviously suffered some pain, she complained of pain nearly a year after the accident, and her complaints were consistent with the physical findings of a medical witness, who stated that Verna would suffer increasing pain in the future. Additionally, the medical witness testified that Verna suffered a ten per cent permanent disability as a result of her wrist injury-
A jury found the defendant one hundred per cent at fault and, although instructed, inter alia, to consider pain and suffering and permanent disability as elements of damages, returned a verdict for Verna in the exact amount of her medical bills, that is, $600. Verna's motion for a new trial on the ground that the damage award was inadequate was denied, and she appealed.
We reverse and remand upon a holding that where, as here, a jury awards the plaintiff the exact amount of medical expenses incurred by her, despite indisputable evidence that the plaintiff suffered at least some pain from her injury, and uncontro-verted evidence that the pain continued and would continue well after the injury, the damage award is grossly inadequate, and a new trial on the issue of damages is required. Pickel v. Rosen, 214 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). See also Short v. Grossman, 245 So.2d 217 (Fla.1971); Griffis v. Hill, 230 So.2d 143 (Fla.1970); Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only,