Case Name: Adele VAN SICKLE, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-02-05
Citations: 503 So. 2d 1288
Docket Number: No. 86-158
Parties: Adele VAN SICKLE, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: ORFINGER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 503
Pages: 1288–1290

Head Matter:
Adele VAN SICKLE, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 86-158.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 5, 1987.
Rehearing Denied March 17, 1987.
Lamar D. Oxford of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, Orlando, for appellant.
F. Bradley Hassell of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
We exercise our discretion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4) to review a final order of the County Court of Orange County, Florida, wherein that court certified to be of great public importance the following question:
May an expert witness in the field of orthopedic medicine render expert testimony or opinions regarding the reasonableness and/or necessity of chiropractic care and treatment?
The answer to this question, as worded, is "yes." This answer to this question merely means that an expert in orthopedic medicine is not, for that very reason, unqualified from also being sufficiently knowledgeable of chiropractic healing as to render an expert opinion on the reasonableness of chiropractic care and treatment in a particular case.
An orthopedic physician duly and regularly engaged in the practice of ortho pedic medicine with special professional training and experience in orthopedic medicine is not thereby alone necessarily an expert as to every, or any, aspect of chiropractic healing because these two fields are not the same discipline or school of practice. However, expertise in the field of orthopedic medicine may be relevant to expertise on the necessity and reasonableness of chiropractic care and treatment in a particular case, and a particular orthopedic physician may also be possessed of "special knowledge or skill" (Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.390(a)) [or of specialized "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" (§ 90.702, Fla.Stat.) ] about chiropractic healing as to be qualified as an "expert witness" entitled to testify in the form of an opinion about some aspect of that subject.
The qualification of an expert witness and the perimeters of his expertise are conclusions of fact to be determined advisedly by the trial judge and affirmed on appeal if supported by competent evidence. We find no error in the trial court's ruling in this case and
AFFIRM.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. As to the use of "and/or" in legal writings, see Cochrane v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 107 Fla. 431, 145 So. 217 (1932); Health Clubs, Inc. v. State, 338 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
. This question involves an opinion as to whether as to a particular patient chiropractic care and treatment was "reasonable and necessary" (restrictive wording in an insurance policy) and not an opinion as to "the prevailing professional standard of care" of a chiropractic health care provider. See § 768.45, Fla.Stat. Further, the word "reasonable" here relates to the chiropractic care and treatment itself and not the reasonableness of the amount of a particular charge for particular chiropractic services.
. See Foster v. Thornton, 125 Fla. 699, 170 So. 459 (1936); Fay v. Mincey, 454 So.2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Mitchell v. Angulo, 416 So.2d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Ashburn v. Fox, 233 So.2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Hawkins v. Schofman, 204 So.2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 211 So.2d 215 (Fla.1968); Musachia v. Terry, 140 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).