Expert's testimony regarding medical billing and coding was admissible for purposes of determining the reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment in the context of an uninsured motorist claim.

As in a suit for personal injury, a plaintiff seeking uninsured motorist coverage must demonstrate that his or her medical expenses are reasonable and necessary. The insurer had retained an expert to testify to the reasonableness of the charges for the insured's medical treatment. The trial court excluded this testimony, and the appellate court found that this was an error, reversing the decision of the lower court. In determining admissibility of expert testimony, Section 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2009) requires the court to make two preliminary determinations whether: (1) the subject matter will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a disputed fact and (2) the witness is adequately qualified to express an opinion on the matter. The expert's testimony that the bills did not correlate to the treatment in the records was relevant to prove that the insured's medical providers fabricated or exaggerated the necessary medical care. This testimony regarded a technical matter of which the jury did not have basic knowledge. The expert had specialized knowledge, and education and training to express an opinion on whether the medical bills were properly coded and corresponded to the records documenting the purported treatment.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011