Case Name: ALL AMERICAN POOL SURFACE, INC., and Jason Evans, Appellants, v. Paul JORDAN, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-03-17
Citations: 870 So. 2d 885
Docket Number: No. 3D03-309
Parties: ALL AMERICAN POOL SURFACE, INC., and Jason Evans, Appellants, v. Paul JORDAN, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and LEVY, J., and HARRIS, CHARLES M., Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 870
Pages: 885–886

Head Matter:
ALL AMERICAN POOL SURFACE, INC., and Jason Evans, Appellants, v. Paul JORDAN, Appellees.
No. 3D03-309.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 17, 2004.
Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans & Abel, P.A., and Hinda Klein (Hollywood), for appellants.
Barbara Green, Coral Gables; Goldfarb, Gold, Gonzalez & Wald and Jonathan D. Wald, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and LEVY, J., and HARRIS, CHARLES M., Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this case is whether the testimony of the forensic accountant concerning plaintiffs loss of future earning ability was so based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions that a new trial should have been ordered by the trial court. The expert's figures, not finalized until shortly before her testimony and calculated without discussing them with plaintiff or reading his deposition, assumed incorrectly that plaintiff, an hourly rate employee, received the private use of a company car, sick leave, and paid vacations. She further based her testimony on the costs of benefits, including the cost of worker's compensation protection, cost of uniforms, and cost for the work-related use of a vehicle paid by the employer. Obviously, if plaintiff is being compensated for the rest of his work life for the income he would have received had he worked full time, then the future use of a uniform, which he would no longer have to wear, the future use of a work-related vehicle, which he would no longer have to drive, or the cost of unemployment protection, when he is no longer concerned with being unemployed, is immaterial.
Because we agree that the expert's testimony was based on speculation, conjecture, and incorrect assumptions, we reverse for a new trial on the issue of lost earning ability.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.