Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

October 22, 2015 | Blog Post| Florida's 4th DCA Enforces Limit on Expert Discovery

Inconsistencies between the defense expert’s interrogatory answers and his deposition testimony regarding the percentage of income the doctor derived from working as an expert witness, and the number of times he testified for plaintiffs versus defendants, was not sufficient to satisfy the “most unusual or compelling circumstances” test under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280.  This was the decision handed down by Florida’s 4th DCA on September 9, 2015 in the case of Jordan Grabel, M.D. v. Roura (Case No. 4D15-194 & 4D15-199). 

Rule subsection 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii)4 allows discovery into the expert’s financial and business records to show bias only “under the most unusual or compelling circumstances.” The 4th District reversed the trial court’s decision, allowing plaintiff to issue 20 non-party subpoenas to insurance carriers not involved in the litigation to explore the expert’s relationship with the carriers.  The subpoenas required production of financial records, including tax records showing the total amount of fees paid to the doctor for expert litigation services.

The District Court found: “This extensive financial discovery as to a retained expert exceeds that allowed by the rule and is unnecessary… the alleged inconsistencies do not constitute ‘unusual or compelling circumstances’ to warrant such broad financial disclosure.”  In rendering its decision, the Court emphasized that while there were inconsistencies, there was no showing that the inconsistencies were the result of “falsification, misrepresentation, or obfuscation,” hinting that, if there were, additional discovery may be warranted.

This case provides valuable guidance regarding extraordinary discovery requests directed to experts. This ruling suggests the courts will protect experts from intrusive discovery absent some type of malfeasance, and will, in most cases, require parties to show and argue bias from basic expert discovery.  Nonetheless, expert witnesses and trial lawyers need to beware of the consequences of not being fully forthright with discovery directed to the expert’s financial interests. 

William Schoel 

William’s practice is concentrated in the areas of Employment Law and Casualty Defense Litigation and his focus is on the defense of liability claims including auto, premises, product liability, employment, construction defect, and other liability claims. Some of his most common case types include issues surrounding the Americans with Disabilities Act, discrimination, civil rights, and professional malpractice. 

May 29, 2019 Blog PostThe Final Word? The Florida Supreme Court Adopts the Daubert Standard for Evidence

Prior to 1993, federal and state courts used the standard enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), to determine whether scientific evidence should be admitted at a trial.  The Frye standard requires the offeror of the evidence to establish that the expert opinion is based on principles and testing procedures that are generally accepted by the scientific community.  The standard only applies to new and novel scientific evidence.

Read More »
February 27, 2017 Blog PostNEW MEDICARE CONDITIONAL PAYMENT CASE: FEDERAL COURT REQUIRES CMS TO PERFORM SURGERY ON ITS PRIMARY PLAN REIMBUSEMENT DEMANDS

Doctors often treat Medicare beneficiaries for accident related injuries (for which a “primary” auto or workers’ compensation carrier must reimburse Medicare) and unrelated maladies at the same visit. Billing for the visit cites multiple diagnosis codes, but a single charge for treatment of both an accident related back injury and unrelated hypertension, or gout for example.

Read More »
December 06, 2016 Blog PostTRIAL COURT SLIPS AND FALLS IN GRANTING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

On October 21, 2016, Florida’s Second DCA issued a decision in a slip-and-fall case against Wal-Mart that found the trial court erred when it set aside the jury verdict and granted Plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the basis that Wal-Mart’s failure to follow its own safety policy clearly demonstrated a finding of negligence.

Read More »
November 02, 2015 Blog PostWHAT THE SECOND DISTRICT GIVETH, THE SUPREME COURT TAKETH AWAY

On October 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed a Second District decision that ruled evidence of Medicare benefits was admissible under an exception to the collateral source rule.

Read More »
June 04, 2015 Blog PostSouthern District of Florida Awards Duplicate Medicare Lien Payment

The federal order was issued despite the fact that Plaintiff previously obtained a reduction of Humana’s lien amount in the state court declaratory action based on the amount of her recovery and procurement costs, which was appealed by Humana.  That appeal remains pending.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostSports Laws Focusing More and More on Youth Sports

Youth sports have become a year-round, multi-million dollar industry. From travel teams, to club ball, to off-season workouts, the concept of youth sports has changed dramatically from a fun day at the park to a highly competitive atmosphere, where specialization and focus on one particular sport begins at an earlier and earlier age. As a result of the increase in the popularity and appetite for competition among children, the law has also begun to change.

Read More »
Key Points
Author Practice Area CASE TYPE
  • General Casualty Litigation