Case Name: OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jean YOUNGERMAN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-04-27
Citations: 636 So. 2d 166
Docket Number: No. 92-1503
Parties: OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jean YOUNGERMAN, Appellee.
Judges: HERSEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 636
Pages: 166–169

Head Matter:
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jean YOUNGERMAN, Appellee.
No. 92-1503.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 27, 1994.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 2, 1994.
Thomas E. Ice of Barwick, Dillian & Lambert, P.A., Miami Shores, for appellant.
Scott Mager, Law Offices of Scott Mager, P.A., Coral Springs, Gary S. Gaffney, Law Offices of Gary S. Gaffney, P.A., Hollywood, and Walter G. Campbell, Jr., Krupniek, Campbell, Malone & Roselli, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
WARNER, Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment rendered after a jury verdict in favor of appellee, appellant claims that the court erred in reading self-serving and prejudicial portions of a Mary Carter agreement to the jury. It also claims that a nurse's testimony should not have been excluded. We agree as to both issues and reverse. Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. DeBerry, — So.2d —, No. 91-0392 (Fla. 4th DCA April 27, 1994), is dispositive on the first issue. It is error to read self-serving prejudicial portions of a Mary Carter agreement. Appellee contends that the appellant did not properly preserve its objection, but we disagree. Appellant's counsel moved to strike the paragraph containing the offending statements (which dealt both with objectionable statements regarding appellant's negligence as well as the seriousness of appellee's injuries) which was denied by the trial court, and counsel persisted in expressing his disagreement with the court's determination after it was made.
It also was error to have excluded the appellee's statement to an emergency room nurse. The appellee's contention at trial was that an elevator malfunctioned, throwing ap-pellee to the floor of the elevator, causing her to break her hip. The nurse was recording information taken from appellee as part of appellee's medical history when she arrived at the hospital on the day of the accident for treatment of her injuries. The nurse recorded that appellee stated she fainted or passed out and fell. The statement was admissible under section 90.803(4) as pertinent to diagnosis and treatment. It described "past or present symptoms," i.e. fainting, and was made to the nurse in the course of appellee's seeking treatment at the hospital for her injuries.
To be admissible under the rule, "[t]he statements are not required to be made to a medical doctor. They may be made to an ambulance attendant, a nurse, or some other individual as long as they are made for the purpose of obtaining treatment." Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.4, p. 483-84 (1993 Edition). Thus, the rule focuses on the motivation of the person making the statement and is premised on the assumption that a person seeking medical help will truthfully relate her symptoms and medical history. See Meaney v. United States, 112 F.2d 538, 539-40 (2d Cir.1940); Ehrhardt § 803.4, p. 481. See also Danzy v. State, 553 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Begley v. State, 483 So.2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We do not accept appellee's contention that a physician must testify to the pertinence of the statement to a particular medical diagnosis and treatment as an essential predicate to admissibility when the statement relates to the patient's physical condition. The cases cited by appellee excluding patients' statements all deal with statements of fault assessment or external causes of an accident and not with the patient's physical symptoms. See e.g. Saul v. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 499 So.2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
HERSEY, J., concurs.
GUNTHER, J., dissents with opinion.
. Although not argued below, appellee's statement would also be an admission against interest. See section 90.803(18); Wilkinson v. Grover, 181 So.2d 591, 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 824 (Fla.1966).