Florida law allows a jury to decide if the evidence presented by experts is sufficient to award damages to a person who claims to have been injured in an automobile accident. This may sound a bit strange considering that jury members are not medical experts by any means.

The question is can a car accident lawyer Boca Raton change a jurie’s mind in favor of a person who is truly injured in an accident. The challenge that faces a car accident lawyer Boca Raton is elucidated by a January 22, 2017, Fifth District Court of Appeals Decision in Florida. The answer is yes they can.

A Florida woman was injured in an accident where the driver who admitted that he was at fault did not have enough insurance to cover the injured woman’s injuries. The woman filed an underinsured motorist claim to recover the money she paid for medical care for her injures.

The proceedings of the trial established that the woman had previously had degenerative disc disease. The exact extent of her injuries and the financial value of those injuries could not be determined. She sued her own insurance company.

The insurance company for the lady did not claim that she caused the accident. The company did claim that her injuries existed before the accident occurred and that the injuries were not caused by the accident. The court refused to allow expert testimony from three experts hired by the insurance company.

The testimony of the injured woman’s neurosurgeon did not really help her case. He stated that he performed a bone-fusion surgery on the woman because the accident had aggravated a previously existing ailment. He noted that the woman suffered from degenerative disc disease but could not document when the disease began. He did state that the woman had a 15 to 20 percent chance of facing future surgery due to the accident.

The jury awarded the lady $7,000 for lost income. The court granted her request for a new trial. She felt entitled to a higher amount of compensation. The appeal was granted based on the fact that her neurosurgeon’s testimony had not been refuted.

The appeal was denied. The Court of Appeals found that the testimony of the neurosurgeon was too vague to allow a jury to reach any other decision than the one that they did. The neurosurgeon did not state absolutely that the auto accident caused the injuries or would result in future need for surgery.

Several tactical errors were made in this woman’s attempt to receive just compensation for her injuries. The jury could have been led to a better verdict by a more thorough investigation of the neurosurgeon’s records and testimony prior to his appearance in court. Insurance companies often use experts to sway a jury in their favor. Experienced lawyers can turn this tactic against the insurance company in favor of their client