UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc. v. AFFILIATED HEALTHCARE CENTERS, INC., A/A/O WILSON BAQUERO

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 4, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-93 Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-27 AP, 08-21448 CC ________________

United Automobile Insurance Company, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Affiliated Healthcare Centers, Inc., a/a/o Wilson Baquero, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Diana Gonzalez-Whyte, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

Douglas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein, for appellee. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“A trial court has wide discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence, and *2 a ruling on admissibility will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion.” (citing Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024, 1029 (Fla. 1981))); Jackson v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 298 So. 3d 531, 536–37 (Fla. 2020) (holding that under section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, the proponent of a business record need only lay foundation “using the language of the statute or a close approximation of it,” and that the testifying witness is not required “detail the basis for his or her familiarity with the relevant business practices of the company or give additional details about those practices as part of the initial foundation because this would be inconsistent with the plain language of the statute” (citations omitted)).