CHARLERY v. UNITED STATES (2025)

ORDER

This cause is before the Court following a two-day bench trial held from July 21 to 22, 2025. (See Docs. 68, 69). Having considered the pleadings, evidence, arguments, and relevant legal authority, the Court sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. For the reasons set forth below, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendant the United States of America under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

BACKGROUND

This action arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671–2680. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff Precious Patricia Charlery (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant the United States of America (“the Government”) for negligence after United States Postal Service employee Thomas Schneider's USPS vehicle rear-ended Plaintiff's vehicle on December 27, 2021. (Id.).

At trial the Court heard testimony from six witnesses: (1) Thomas Schneider; (2) Plaintiff; (3) Jason Highsmith, M.D. (Plaintiff's treating physician); (4) Ieshia Spencer (Plaintiff's daughter); (5) David Feiner, M.D. (the Government's retained medical expert); and (6) Lindsay Knutson, J.D., M.S., CPC (the Government's retained medical billing and coding expert). (See Docs. 68-69, see also Docs. 70-71). The Court admitted the following exhibits: Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 through 11 and the Government's Exhibits 1 through 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22.¹ (Docs. 72-73; see also Docs. 70-71). After the trial concluded, the Parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Docs. 74, 75).

FINDINGS OF FACT 2

I. Plaintiff's Physical Condition Prior to the Instant Accident

Plaintiff has an extensive medical history involving several painful conditions. Prior to the instant accident, which occurred when Plaintiff was fifty-three years old, she had been diagnosed with diabetes, migraines, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis in her shoulders.³ (Doc. 70 at 23-26, 59-60; see, e.g., Doc. 73-12 (Government's Exhibit 13) at 28-31).

Notably, Plaintiff has a history of chronic pain, including neck and back pain. (Doc. 70 at 23-26, 59-60, 65-68, 75-79; see, e.g., Doc. 73-12 (Government's Exhibit 13) at 28-31). Plaintiff testified that her fibromyalgia causes “pain throughout [her] body” and “overall body pain and stiffness,” especially in her joints. (Doc. 70 at 23-24). She also reported experiencing (and receiving treatment for) neck and back pain prior to the instant accident, including after car accidents in 2010 and 2018. (Id. at 24-26, 65-68, 121-122; see Doc. 73-11 (Government's Exhibit 12) at 313-316; Doc. 73-14 (Government's Exhibit 15) at 93-99).

Plaintiff treated with a pain management specialist for her fibromyalgia and neck and back pain in the months before the instant accident. (Doc. 70 at 24-26, 84-85). On May 18, 2021, nearly seven months before the accident at issue in this case, Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Cesar Lassalle for “pain management and pain medicine” after she advised her primary care physician that she was experiencing 10-out-of-10 pain.⁴ (Doc. 73-12 (Government's Exhibit 13) at 28-31).

Although she experienced some limitations due to her medical conditions, Plaintiff worked as a home health aide and enjoyed independent activities prior to the instant accident. (Doc. 70 at 22-23, 27, 40-41, 57-58, 180-182).

II. The Instant Accident

The accident at issue here occurred between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on December 27, 2021. (Id. at 7-8, 26-27). Plaintiff was driving a Nissan Rogue and Mr. Schneider was driving a USPS Dodge Ram Promaster. (Doc. 61 at 2, 4).

Plaintiff and Mr. Schneider were traveling in the same direction on Narcoossee Road in Orlando, Florida when the cars in front of them slowed to a stop to accommodate tractor-trailers blocking the lanes ahead. (Doc. 70 at 9-10, 28-29). Both Plaintiff and Mr. Schneider were forced to slow down and apply their brakes as a result. (Id. at 10, 13-14, 20, 27-29). Mr. Scheider testified that he may have been slightly distracted at the time because he was checking his mirrors to ensure that cars behind him were braking. (Id. at 10, 13, 20). Ultimately, the front bumper of Mr. Schneider's vehicle made contact with the rear bumper of Plaintiff's vehicle, resulting in minimal damage to both vehicles.⁵ (Id. at 10-11, 14-15; see Doc. 72-9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 9); Doc. 73-1 (Government's Exhibit 1)). Mr. Schneider testified that the accident “wasn't a hard hit.” (Doc. 70 at 14-15). Plaintiff testified that she was wearing her seatbelt when the accident occurred but was “jolted forward then backwards in the seat.” (Id. at 30).

III. Plaintiff's Physical Condition Immediately Following the Instant Accident

After the accident, Plaintiff testified that she was “in shock” and “a bit shaken,” but she reported to Mr. Schneider that she was alright. (Id. at 30). She and Mr. Schneider pulled over to the side of the road, and she left her vehicle to inspect the damage before returning to the driver's seat. (Id. at 30-33).

When she went back to her car, Plaintiff felt “a little bit lightheaded” and “a little bit of discomfort” and agreed to be examined by medical personnel at the scene. (Id. at 33). Plaintiff testified that they “checked [her] blood pressure and a few other things, and they said it seemed to be okay” and that they “didn't find anything going on at the time.” (Id. at 33-34 (cleaned up)).

Plaintiff elected not to go to the hospital and drove her vehicle home. (Id. at 34). She explained that she “did not think that the pain that [she] was in would have been as great,” so she “went home, had a little breakfast, took [her] medication, took some pain pill[s], and rested.” (Id.).

The next day, Plaintiff felt “[s]ome stiffness and some pain” in her neck, shoulder, and back. (Id.). The pain was not severe enough, however, to interrupt Plaintiff's plan to visit family members over the holidays, so she waited to seek medical treatment until after she returned. (Id. at 35, 96-97).

IV. Plaintiff's Medical Treatment After the Instant Accident

Plaintiff first received medical attention at C.O.R. Medical Centers of Orlando, Inc. (“C.O.R.”) on January 6, 2022—ten days after the accident. (Id. at 36, 96; Doc. 73-5 (Government's Exhibit 5) at 7-21). Plaintiff testified that she was experiencing “pain and lots of stiffness” at that time. (Doc. 70 at 37 (“I was very stiff, to the point that I could not really move. My range of motion was very limited.”)). At her initial appointment, Plaintiff identified neck and lower back pain and reported experiencing sharp pain and achiness, as well as “tightness, burning, and tingling.” (Id. at 36-37; Doc. 72-5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5) at 71). Plaintiff testified that the chiropractic treatment she received at C.O.R. did not relieve her pain; thus, her provider referred her to a specialist for her neck and back, and the specialist recommended surgery. (Doc. 70 at 37-38).

In May of 2022, Plaintiff saw Dr. Highsmith for a second opinion regarding the recommended surgery because she was still experiencing problems with her neck and lower back, as well as radiating and tingling pain and numbness from her shoulder to her hands and down her leg.⁶ (Id. at 38-41). Dr. Highsmith ultimately performed surgery—specifically, “bilateral L4-5 decompression with microdiscectomy and C6-7 [fusion]”—on September 27, 2022. (Id. at 42 see Doc. 73-6 (Government's Exhibit 6) at 21-24).

Even after the surgery, however, Plaintiff continued to experience neck and back pain. (Doc. 70 at 49). Plaintiff testified that the pain affected her quality of life and that she is concerned because as she gets older, “it seems like the pain is getting worse.” (Id. at 56-58).

V. Dr. Highsmith and Dr. Feiner's Testimony

There is no real dispute here that the Government had a duty of care that was breached when Mr. Schneider's vehicle contacted Plaintiff's vehicle. There is also no dispute that Plaintiff suffered (and continues to suffer) from neck and back pain—and underwent surgery to address that pain. The primary issue in dispute in this case is whether the accident caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury. In addition to Plaintiff and her daughter's testimony regarding Plaintiff's physical condition after the accident, the Court also heard from Plaintiff's treating physician Dr. Highsmith and the Government's retained expert Dr. Feiner, who offered contradicting testimony regarding causation.

a. Dr. Highsmith – Plaintiff's Treating Physician

Dr. Highsmith is a neurological surgeon who specializes in treating the brain and spine. (Id. at 126, 128). He has been a doctor for twenty-five years and board-certified since 2010. (Id. at 126-127). Dr. Highsmith testified that he diagnosed and treated Plaintiff's neck and back and that, in his opinion, the accident necessitated the surgery he performed. (Id. at 158, 166, 170, 175).

Dr. Highsmith treated Plaintiff between May 11, 2022, and March 1, 2024. (Id. at 131). He testified that Plaintiff presented with complaints of neck and back pain following the instant accident. (Id.). He learned during her treatment that she had been involved in two prior car accidents and suffered from various preexisting conditions, including fibromyalgia. (Id. at 131-132). However, he did not testify in detail regarding Plaintiff's medical history.

Before recommending surgery, Dr. Highsmith physically examined Plaintiff and reviewed MRIs of Plaintiff's lumbar spine (i.e., lower back) and cervical spine (i.e., neck) that were captured one month after the instant accident on January 26, 2022. (Id. at 135-137, 140).⁷ In reviewing the MRI of Plaintiff's cervical spine, Dr. Highsmith recognized that Plaintiff had “normal wear and tear” and “a little bit of slip of one of the bones,” which he said is “a chronic thing” that humans experience as they age. (Id. at 140-142). But Dr. Highsmith also stated that “one thing looked fresh” and appeared to be “an annular tear with central herniation.” (Id.). He explained:

Unfortunately, we can't date it exactly, but we know that if these tears have been existing for a long time we see changes in the bone, end plate changes, modic changes, spondylosis, osteophytes, arthritic changes. And we did not see that in this case at this level, meaning this looked to be something that had recently occurred in the previous weeks, months, even maybe a year or two, but it wasn't an arthritic, longstanding condition. If it was, we would see bone spurs. We would see those type of things.

(Id. at 141).

Regarding Plaintiff's lumbar spine, Dr. Highsmith testified that his review of Plaintiff's January 2022 MRI revealed another acute finding:

She had maintenance of the disc height, so if she had any previous back injury, it didn't cause significant height loss or compression of the disc. She had some abnormalities of the disc from L3 to S1, but particularly the middle level of those. L4-5 had high signal, which means on the MRI you can actually see edema, swelling, findings that are suggestive of, hey, this is a tear, this is where the body is actively fighting inflammation, as opposed to this has been there for years and is long-standing.

So she had high signal there with disc space edema, meaning there was a swollen area of the cartilage, and that resulted in compression of the nerves and foramen, where the nerves come out. So it was actually compressing the nerve structures․

She has wear and tear above and below and some at that level, but clearly what looks to be fresh injury at the L4-5 level, which, again, correlated with the exam, correlated with where she felt pain, and was consistent with a recent trauma.

(Id. at 142-143).

Dr. Highsmith was particularly concerned with the C6-7 level in Plaintiff's neck and the L4-5 disc in Plaintiff's lower back. (Id. at 144). Following his physical examination and review of Plaintiff's MRIs dated January 26, 2022, he recommended surgery. (Id. at 145). He testified:

So, again, she's almost six months out. I give patients all the options they have. It's nothing that's life threatening, but she's declining. This is something that typically slowly gets worse with time, the deflating tire analogy, and she was having worsening pain and hasn't had much relief yet, so we did talk, pretty early on, about surgery as a surgical treatment to physically correct the problem, to remove pressure on the nerves, to rebuild that level of the spine and the neck and back.

But we also said, Look, we can keep going with more therapy, meds, her injections. But she said, ultimately, she wanted to go ahead with the surgery, which I think that was reasonable six months in. She has neurologic deficits. She's tried conservative care. She was on medication.

(Id. at 145-146).

During the cervical spine surgery, Dr. Highsmith “found the herniation consistent with the MRI imaging and some acute disc in the epidural space, meaning this wasn't a bone spur” or a “cartilage-based disc.” (Id. at 152). Instead, Dr. Highsmith testified it “was actually sort of a fresh piece that had broken off.” (Id.). Dr. Highsmith confirmed that Plaintiff had central herniation and annular tearing at C6-7. (Id. at 154). During the lumbar spine surgery, Dr. Highsmith “saw exactly what [h]e expected and some things [h]e didn't.” (Id. at 150). He noticed additional subligamentous disc, which indicated that Plaintiff's disc had gotten worse since the January 2022 MRI. (Id.). Dr. Highsmith did not document any edema or acute swelling during the surgery, although he had noticed that when reviewing the MRI films. (Id.).

In sum, Dr. Highsmith's causation opinion was based solely on his treatment of Plaintiff and his limited review of her medical history. He pointed to the “fresh” tear and edema he saw on Plaintiff's 2022 MRI and her condition during surgery, but he could not pinpoint the injuries’ cause(s) with any accuracy. His best estimate was that “this looked to be something that had recently occurred in the previous weeks, months, even maybe a year or two.” (Id. at 141).

b. Dr. Feiner – The Government's Retained Medical Expert

Dr. Feiner is an expert in orthopedic surgery. (Doc. 71 at 13). Specifically, he is an orthopedic surgeon who specializes in hands, wrists, upper extremities, microsurgery, and general orthopedics. (Id. at 9, 55). He has been in private practice for eleven years and is board-certified. (Id. at 10-11). While he does not presently operate on the spine and neck, he has in the past and currently treats patients with spine and neck issues in his practice. (Id. at 9, 56).

Dr. Feiner reviewed “extensive medical records in this case,” including the following images: (1) MRIs of Plaintiff's cervical spine and lumbar spine dated July 17, 2018; (2) X-rays of Plaintiff's pelvis, hips, shoulder, left spine, and lumbar spine dated June 10, 2021; (3) and MRIs of Plaintiff's cervical and lumbar spine dated January 26, 2022. (Id. at 15-18; see Doc. 70 at 101, 140).

Dr. Feiner specifically noted Plaintiff's history of diabetes, fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, and radiculopathy (i.e., “radiating symptoms in her upper and lower extremities”) prior to the instant accident. (Doc. 71 at 18). He also recognized that:

[Plaintiff has] been treated in the past by pain management. She's had chronic body-wide pain, well in — from what I can see, at least into the early 2020s, if not prior to that. It's generally been, you know, rating high, generally eight to 10, eight out of ten, 10 out of 10. She's had instances where she's gone to the emergency room for numbness and tingling all over her body. She has, you know, been referred to pain management multiple times for peripheral neuropathy and chronic pain. She's had weakness in her extremities, numbness in extremities.

(Id. at 19-20).

Regarding Plaintiff's neck and back, Dr. Feiner testified that “she's had injuries,” including after the 2018 car accident. (Id. at 18-19). Dr. Feiner stated that, in 2018, Plaintiff had disc herniations (the most prominent being at C6-7), as well as degenerative disc disease, in her cervical and lumbar spine. (Id. at 18-19, 22-23, 27-28).⁸

Much of Dr. Feiner's testimony focused on reviewing images of Plaintiff's X-ray and MRI films from 2018 to 2022. (See id. at 9-50). Using a demonstrative PowerPoint presentation, Dr. Feiner referred to copies of Plaintiff's X-ray and MRI images while he explained his opinions.⁹ (See id.).

Beginning with images of Plaintiff's cervical spine captured before the instant accident, Dr. Feiner recognized: (1) degenerative changes generally; (2) disc bulges and compression; (3) loss of fluid signals, including behind the posterior longitudinal ligament; (4) loss of disc height; (5) bone spurring; and (6) disc herniation of the C6-7 disc, both interiorly and posteriorly. (Id. at 34-40). Dr. Feiner explained that edema (i.e., fluid) can be both degenerative and chronic or acute and traumatic in nature. (Id. at 36, 71). Contrary to Dr. Highsmith's opinion, Dr. Feiner did not identify any acute or traumatic issues. (Id. at 40 (“Certainly I don't see anything acute․ I'm looking for increased fluid signals in those muscles and ligaments to suggest an acute injury. I don't see any bony changes consistent with fractures, dislocations, nothing like that.”)); (see also id. at 36, 70-73).

Dr. Feiner then compared the images of Plaintiff's cervical spine taken before the instant accident to images taken after the instant accident. (Id. at 41-42). He testified:

[T]hey're, essentially, the same images. I see the same pathology. I see the same disc herniations. I see the same fluid signals[.] ․ I see a little bit of progression of the disc height there, which, again, over four years you would expect to see some loss. Bone spurring I see again at C6-7. I see a little bit more bone spurring at C6-7 there. Nothing acute. Essentially, if I'm looking at these, these are essentially the same imaging, same images, no significant difference in pathology, certainly no acute difference in pathology. If anything, there's a slight progression of degenerative changes, which I would expect in comparison over four-year difference․

But I have this imaging here of 2018, which is essentially the same disc herniation, the same fluid signals above and below, so I know they're reactive and they're not acutely traumatic. So I can look at these and say, Okay. This is the same pathology. From 2018 to 2022, I don't see any difference, acute difference, that would lead me to believe that this patient was in an auto accident and caused these significant changes. The pathology treated here at C6-7 is the pathology that was there 2018 and potentially even, you know, beginning before that.

(Id.).

Dr. Feiner provided similar testimony regarding Plaintiff's lumbar spine. (Id. at 43-48). Starting with a 2018 image of Plaintiff's lumbar spine, he explained:

I'm looking at the same types of things. I'm looking for any edema in the posterior elements, you know, any large disc herniations with fluid around them. I'm looking for disc changes consistent with potential disc, you know, degeneration.

Now, in the lumbar spine it's easy. The discs should get bigger as we go lower, because as you go lower, you're carrying more weight. You're requiring more shock absorption.

So L5-S1 is the most common level for degenerative disc disease, and you can see at both․ L4-5 and L5-S1 there's darker discs compared to this up here, less disc desiccation, loss of disc height. You can see she's got ․ a bit of marrow changes. I spoke to the modic changes, [ ] where you get this whiteness of that rim of bone there. On MRI that whiteness is fluid and you can see that with reactive changes. She's also got disc protrusions here at 4-5 and 5-1[.] ․

So I see signs of degenerative disc disease. I see, you know, disc protrusions at L4-5, L5-S1. I don't see any signs of acute trauma in this MRI.

(Id. at 43-44). Dr. Feiner also noted that an MRI from October of 2021 showed:

At L3-4, there was mild bilateral neuroforaminal narrowing due to disc bulge and hypertrophic facet arthropathy, mild disc degeneration at L4-5. There was evidence of neuroforaminal narrowing and mild to moderate degree on the left and mild degree on the right due to disc bulge, focal left subarticular and foraminal zone disc protrusion, hypertrophic facet arthropathy, mild disc degeneration, and annular fissuring at L5-S1. There was evidence of mild right neuroforaminal narrowing due to the right subarticular disc protrusion, mild disc degeneration with annular fissuring, and mild facet arthropathy.

(Id. at 21). He recognized that annular fissuring is akin to an annular tear. (Id.).

Regarding images of Plaintiff's lumbar spine captured after the instant accident, Dr. Feiner explained:

Again, I see some disc changes at this level. I see this disc protrusion here. I see a slight disc bulge or protrusion there[.] I don't see anything acute or any significant changes in that. I don't see any fractures. I don't see any of the soft-tissue things I'm looking for there that I would see in a soft-tissue injury․ I don't see any difference between [the 2018 and 2022 images].

(Id. at 46-47).

Ultimately, Dr. Feiner opined that: (1) he found no objective “evidence of a significant or permeant or severe injury based off the records and imaging”; (2) he did not “see any differences, outside degenerative changes, for an acute injury or changes from the preexisting pathology to the pathology after the accident”; (3) he not believe Plaintiff suffered any significant or permeant injury as a result of the instant accident; and (4) he did not believe Plaintiff's September 27, 2022 surgery was related to the instant accident but rather her “preexisting pathology.” (Id. at 22-23, 48-50). He noted that Plaintiff's delay in seeking care influenced his opinion, as he would expect for someone with an acute disc herniation to “present to an emergency room, if not an urgent care, and get treatment within 24 to 48 hours.” (Id. at 23-25). However, Dr. Feiner recognized that Plaintiff may have experienced a sprain or strain based on her subjective reporting. (Id. at 23-24, 64-65).

VI. Persuasiveness and Credibility

The Court finds that Dr. Feiner, the Government's orthopedic surgery expert, was the most credible and persuasive witness with respect to causation. Notably, Dr. Feiner was the only retained medical expert who testified in this case, and his testimony regarding the similarities between the condition of Plaintiff's cervical spine and lumbar spine before and after the instant accident is largely unrebutted—save for Plaintiff's testimony regarding the pain she experienced after the accident. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). The Court is particularly persuaded by Dr. Feiner's in-court demonstration, during which he published Plaintiff's X-ray and MRI films from 2018 to 2022 and testified regarding the resemblances. The Court credits Dr. Feiner's testimony that Plaintiff did not suffer any severe or permanent injury as a result of the instant accident and that Plaintiff's 2022 surgery was related her preexisting pathology (including her degenerative disc disease) rather than the instant accident.

Dr. Highsmith is also a credible witness, but he testified as hybrid expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C). Consequently, Dr. Highsmith only offered causation opinions based on information that he gathered during the course of Plaintiff's medical treatment. Eason, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 1284 (collecting cases); see Williams v. Mast Biosurgery USA, Inc., 644 F.3d 1312, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 2011). Dr. Highsmith testified that Plaintiff's 2022 MRI revealed “fresh” injuries. The Court has not plainly disregarded this testimony; instead, it credits Dr. Feiner's testimony that the acute injuries which Dr. Highsmith identified were either visible on Plaintiff's X-ray and MRI images taken prior to the instant accident or degenerative—and therefore neither fresh nor acute. Dr. Feiner's testimony on this point is generally unrebutted, considering that Dr. Highsmith neither testified in detail as to Plaintiff's preexisting pathology nor addressed Plaintiff's earlier X-ray and MRI images.

Moreover, some of Dr. Highsmith's testimony suggests that the surgery he performed was in fact inevitable rather than related to the instant accident. For example, Dr. Highsmith testified that similar cervical and lumbar spine conditions slowly worsen over time. For his part, Dr. Feiner explained that, upon review of Plaintiff's imaging, he identified cervical and lumbar spine conditions (specifically, bone spurring) which Dr. Highsmith testified were indicative of arthritic, longstanding conditions. The Court credits Dr. Feiner's testimony on this issue. Again, his in-court comparison of Plaintiff's X-ray and MRI films from 2018 to 2022 is especially persuasive.

At trial, Plaintiff discussed her history of chronic pain, including neck and back pain; her prior car accidents in 2010 and 2018; her lack of severe pain immediately following the instant accident; and her ten-day delay in seeking medical treatment. Plaintiff's delay in seeking treatment, combined with the images of Plaintiff and Mr. Schneider's vehicles and their testimony about the resulting impact, clearly indicate that this was an exceedingly minor collision. Further, Plaintiff's testimony regarding her chronic pain also suggests that Dr. Highsmith's surgery was inevitable. Plaintiff's medical records and her own descriptions of her pain before and after the instant accident (and even after her surgery) are practically indistinguishable. Thus, Plaintiff's testimony likewise supports the conclusion that her preexisting pathology more likely than not caused her to undergo surgery.

Finally, the Court notes that Dr. Feiner testified that Plaintiff may have suffered a non-permanent sprain or strain as a result of the instant accident. While the Court generally finds that possibility to be consistent with Plaintiff's testimony and her susceptibility to injury based on her diabetes, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis, Plaintiff did not mention suffering from this type of injury in her proposed findings of fact (or conclusions of law). (See Doc. 45). Consequently, she has forfeited argument on the issue of an alleged sprain or strain. See Eason, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 1285 n.7 (citing U.S. Steel Corp. v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 1272, 1287 n.13 (11th Cir. 2007)).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 10

I. Overview

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the FTCA, which “provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity for tort claims.” Dalrymple v. United States, 460 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2006); see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). FTCA actions are governed by “the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” § 1346(b)(1); see Eason v. United States, 771 F. Supp. 3d 1263, 1282 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2025). Florida substantive law applies because the accident at issue occurred in Orlando, Florida. § 1346(b)(1); (see Doc. 67 at 2).

“To establish negligence under Florida law, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant's breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages suffered by the plaintiff.” Eason, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 1282 (collecting cases).

II. Duty and Breach

“For Florida negligence claims, duty exists as a matter of law and is not a factual question for a jury to decide.” Id. at 1283 (quoting Lamm v. State St. Bank & Tr., 749 F.3d 938, 947 (11th Cir. 2014)) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Florida law requires “[a]ny person operating a vehicle upon the streets or highways within the state” to “drive the same in a careful and prudent manner, having regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and all other attendant circumstances, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.” Fla. Stat. § 316.1925(1); see Eason, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 1283. In short, Florida drivers have a “duty to drive carefully and avoid hitting other drivers.” Wallace v. Nat'l Fisheries, Inc., 768 So. 2d 17, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); (see Doc. 67 at 3).

“Under Florida decisional law, there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence that attaches to the rear driver in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case.” Birge v. Charron, 107 So. 3d 350, 353 (Fla. 2012). “Unless this presumption is rebutted, the beneficiary of the presumption is entitled to judgment thereon as a matter of law.” Id.

It is undisputed that Mr. Schneider caused the rear-end motor vehicle collision at issue here. Because the Government put forth no evidence showing that the rebuttable presumption of negligence is misplaced or that Plaintiff was also negligent, the Court finds that Mr. Schneider breached his duty of care to Plaintiff when the front of his vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle on December 27, 2021.

III. Causation

Plaintiff has the burden of proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Hessen v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 915 F.2d 641, 647 (11th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that “Florida has adopted a preponderance standard for causation” in negligence actions and that “a mere possibility of causation is not enough.”); Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff's injury.”). In other words, Plaintiff “must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about the result.” Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 602 F.3d 1245, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gooding, 445 So. 2d at 1018).

The Parties presented conflicting testimony on causation. “As the factfinder in a bench trial, the district court makes credibility determinations regarding expert testimony and weighs conflicting evidence to decide issues.” Eason, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 1284-85. Having considered Dr. Highsmith and Dr. Feiner's testimony, as well as Plaintiff's testimony and medical records, the Court is persuaded by Dr. Feiner's opinions as to causation and finds that Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she suffered an injury because of the accident. See supra Section VI. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden as to causation, it need not reach the issue of damages. The Court's verdict is for the Government.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court finds in favor of Defendant the United States of America on Plaintiff Precious Patricia Charlery's claim. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment that Plaintiff Precious Patricia Charlery take nothing on her claim and that Defendant the United States of America is entitled to costs. All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 8, 2025.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It appears that the Government failed to explicitly move Exhibit 7 into evidence, but the Parties reached an agreement regarding the admissibility of certain pages from that exhibit. (See Doc. 71 at 5-6, Doc. 73, Doc. 73-7 (Government's Exhibit 7)). Regarding the Government's Exhibit 10, the Court conditionally admitted the exhibit at trial. (Doc. 70 at 109-110).

3.   Plaintiff testified that she has “had a lot of doctors” and that it was “kind of hard to keep up with everyone [she has] seen.” (Doc. 70 at 70).

4.   Plaintiff's primary care physician noted Plaintiff's history of “chronic pain” and fibromyalgia in the referral. (Doc. 73-12 (Government's Exhibit 13) at 28-31).

5.   The Parties submitted photographs of Plaintiff and Mr. Schneider's vehicles following the accident as evidence. (See Doc. 72-9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 9), Doc. 73-1 (Government's Exhibit 1)). The photographs show that Plaintiff's vehicle's back bumper and Mr. Schneider's vehicle's front bumper suffered marginal damage, if that. (Id.). The damage to Plaintiff's vehicle appeared to be purely cosmetic. (Id.).

6.   Plaintiff explained that she had similar limitations—due to her fibromyalgia—prior to the instant accident, but the limitations were less severe, and her fibromyalgia “got worse,” after the accident. (Doc. 70 at 40).

7.   It is unclear whether Dr. Highsmith reviewed Plaintiff's X-ray or MRI images captured before the instant accident. There was no testimony on this point.

8.   Dr. Feiner's explanation of degenerative disc disease was similar to Dr. Highsmith's explanation of “normal wear and tear.” (Compare Doc. 70 at 141 with Doc. 71 at 29-30 (discussing disc desiccation, modic changes, bone spurs, and loss of disc height)).

9.   The Court did not admit the PowerPoint presentation into evidence. (See Doc. 71 at 133).

NATHAN W. HILL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE