Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

September 19, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Discovery — Non-parties — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in denying defendants’ motion for protective order and compelling discovery about financial and professional relationships between defendants’ insurer, expert witnesses, and the law firm defending defendants

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2278b

Torts — Discovery — Non-parties — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in denying defendants’ motion for protective order and compelling discovery about financial and professional relationships between defendants’ insurer, expert witnesses, and the law firm defending defendants

JOSE RAUL ANGELES-DELGADO and JESSICA CARRILLO, Petitioners, v. JULIO COSTA BENITEZ, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-1022. L.T. Case No. 17-22498. September 11, 2019. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge. Counsel: Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., and Kansas R. Gooden (Jacksonville), for petitioners. Philip D. Parrish, for respondent.

(Before SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.)

(LOGUE, J.) Jose Raul Angeles-Delgado and Jessica Carillo, defendants in an automobile negligence case, petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court’s order denying their motion for protective order and compelling discovery of information about the financial and professional relationships between Defendants’ insurer, expert witnesses, and the law firm defending them.

In the underlying automobile negligence case, Plaintiff Julio Costa Benitez served upon Defendants interrogatories and requests for production to obtain information about the financial relationships between the Defendants’ experts and the Defendants’ law firm and insurer pursuant to Allstate Insurance Company v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999) (holding that a party may obtain discovery from an opposing party regarding the opposing party’s relationship with an expert). The discovery requests were directed to Defendants, but sought information in the possession of their experts, lawyers, and insurer, who were not named as defendants in the action.

Defendants contend that the trial court order is contrary to Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Association, 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017). Defendants maintain that Worley made clear that Boecher discovery does not apply to non-parties. We disagree. Worley holds only that the attorney-client privilege bars compelled disclosure of whether the plaintiff’s lawyer referred the plaintiff to a treating physician. Id. at 20. On these facts, Worley is inapposite. Defendants are, therefore, unable to establish that the trial court’s order amounts to a departure of the essential requirements of the law. Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 721 (Fla. 2012) (explaining that to grant certiorari relief, there must be: “(1) a material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law.”).

For these reasons, we deny the petition. Worley, 228 So. 3d 18; but see Younkin v. Blackwelder, __ So. 3d __, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D549, 2019 WL 847548 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 22, 2019) (noting the “seemingly disparate treatment in personal injury litigation between plaintiffs and defendants regarding disclosure of this type of relationship” and certifying whether Worley applies to preclude a defense law firm that is not a party from disclosing financial relationship with experts retained for purposes of litigation as a question of great public importance), rev. granted, Case No. SC19-385, 2019 WL 2180625 (Fla. May 21, 2019); see also Salber v. Frye, 273 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (same); Dhanraj v. Garcia, __ So. 3d __, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D785, 2019 WL 1302540 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 22, 2019) (same); Dodgen v. Grijalva, __ So. 3d __, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1617, 2019 WL 2608343 (Fla. 4th DCA June 26, 2019) (certifying whether Worley applies to preclude an insurance company that is not a party from disclosing financial relationship with experts as a question of great public importance); Rosenthal v. Badillo, No. 4D19-1854 (Fla. 4th DCA July 3, 2019) (same); Levitan v. Razuri, No. 4D19-2200 (Fla. 4th DCA July 22, 2019) (same).

Petition denied.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

Blog Archives

Footer

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. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982