Torts — Negligence — Evidence — Attorney-client privilege — Treating physician — Financial relationship — Appeal of trial court’s admission of evidence related to plaintiff’s counsel’s financial relationship with various treating physicians, including payments by plaintiff’s counsel’s firm to treating physicians, and letters of protection between plaintiff’s counsel’s firm and treating physicians — While letters of protection may be admitted to establish bias, any further inquiry regarding financial agreement between a law firm and a treating physician is disallowed as that information is protected by attorney-client privilege — Trial court erred in compelling plaintiff’s counsel to attend deposition and testify at trial as the person with the most knowledge of the firm’s financial records, despite firm identifying alternative individual who could testify — Rule 1.310(b)(6) does not require that a corporation produce the witness with the most knowledge, and counsel was compelled to testify to the prejudice of her own client by being forced to testify regarding counsel’s trust account, payments made to treating physicians, and counsel’s personal relationships with those physicians — Trial court erred in excluding evidence that defendant law firm had made similar referrals and had similar financial relationships with the same treating physicians — Remanded for new trial
44 Fla. L. Weekly D1238a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.