Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2006

M.J.T. v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 12, 2006 · Davis, Larose, Salcines

927 So. 2d 1077; 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7251 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Boone v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
Bellot v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
MJT v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

DAVIS, Judge.

M.J.T. challenges the trial court’s order requiring him to pay $1113.57 in restitution. The State concedes that the explanation of medical benefits (EOMB) forms that were introduced to support the victim’s claim for medical costs were not properly admitted. We agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing.

*1078The only evidence introduced at the restitution hearing to support the victim’s medical costs were the EOMB forms, which specifically state that they are not medical bills. While medical bills may be introduced without producing the records custodian to testify, A. J. v. State, 677 So.2d 935, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the documents here were not bills. Because the EOMB forms were hearsay, to which M.J.T.’s counsel objected at the hearing, the trial court erred in awarding restitution based on the amounts shown on those EOMB forms.

Accordingly, we reduce the $1113.57 restitution award by $909.38, the amount improperly awarded for medical bills, and remand for another restitution hearing to determine the proper amount of medical expenses. See Williams v. State, 850 So.2d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Reversed and remanded.

SALCINES and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.