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
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

September 23, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Negligence — Causation — Evidence — Experts — Qualifications — Timeliness of challenge — Action alleging that defendant landlord’s negligence caused plaintiff tenants to be exposed to dangerous mold during pregnancy, resulting in plaintiffs’ child being born with one kidney and brain damage — No error in determining that defendant’s Daubert challenge, which sought to exclude plaintiff’s causation expert’s testimony, was timely — Although defendant waited approximately 230 days after deposing expert before challenging expert’s testimony, defendant’s motion was filed before the deadline provided in pretrial scheduling order — Plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the delay where trial court held a hearing on the motion two weeks prior to pretrial conference and plaintiffs failed to request a continuance to acquire a new expert or request another form of relief from trial court — Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert’s testimony — Expert, whose specialty was obstetrics and gynecology, was not qualified to testify as to causation because he lacked experience and knowledge to connect mold to child’s medical conditions

46 Fla. L. Weekly D2054a

JACQUELINE HUGGINS, individually, and with ALEXANDER HUGGINS, as Mother and Father and Next Friends of A.R.H., a minor child, Appellants, v. JEFFREY SIEGEL, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D19-3987. September 15, 2021. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Donna M. Keim, Judge. Counsel: Jordan S. Redavid of Fischer Redavid PLLC, Hollywood, for Appellants. Rhonda B. Boggess of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, and Chandra L. Miller of Goodis Thompson & Miller, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, CLARIFICATION,AND CERTIFICATION[Original Opinion at 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1309a]

(B.L. THOMAS. J.) On consideration of Appellant’s motion, this Court grants the motion for clarification, denies the motion for rehearing, withdraws the opinion filed June 3, 2021, and substitutes the following opinion in its place.

Appellants rented a house on Appellee’s property from August 2015 through December 2017. Appellants complained about potential water intrusion and mold before moving into the home, and again in July or August of 2017. When Appellee refused to have the house inspected, Appellants hired their own mold inspection company. The inspection report indicated that multiple mold types, including two toxic molds — aspergillus and penicillium — were present in the home. After receiving the mold report, Appellants vacated the property.

Appellants alleged that Appellee’s negligence as a landlord exposed Mrs. Huggins to dangerous mold while she was pregnant with one of Appellants’ children. Throughout Mrs. Huggins’s pregnancy, ultrasounds showed that the child was forming two kidneys, but when the child was born it had only one kidney, a condition known as renal agenesis. The child also exhibited signs of brain injury. The child’s medical conditions caused Mrs. Huggins severe emotional distress.

Appellants retained a medical expert to testify about the issue of causation. Approximately a month before the pretrial conference, Appellee moved to exclude Appellants’ expert’s testimony. The trial court’s pretrial scheduling order advised that all motions were to be heard and filed before the pretrial conference including motions in limine, objections to deposition exhibits, and (Daubert) motions.

Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion to exclude the expert testimony. The trial court rejected Appellants’ argument that the motion was untimely because it was filed within the time allowed by the pretrial scheduling order. The trial court also found that the expert was not qualified to testify on causation and his testimony was neither reliable nor valid under Daubert. Following the trial court’s ruling, Appellants did not move for a continuance to acquire a new expert or request another form of relief from the trial court.

Appellee moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims and Appellants conceded that without their expert’s testimony they were unable to assert a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion for final summary judgment.

On appeal, Appellants challenge the trial court’s decision granting Appellee’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Appellants’ expert medical witness. Appellants challenge the timeliness of Appellee’s Daubert motion, the proper standard of review for Daubert decisions, and whether the trial court properly excluded the expert’s testimony.Timeliness

Appellants argue that Appellee’s Daubert challenge was not timely filed. The focus for determining whether a Daubert motion is untimely is on when the party became aware of the opposing party’s expert’s opinion. Booker v. Sumter Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 166 So. 3d 189, 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). However, a trial court’s enforcement of its own pretrial order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion “and reversal is appropriate only when the affected party can clearly show the abuse resulted in unfair prejudice.” Gutierrez v. Vargas, 239 So. 3d 615, 622 (Fla. 2018) (emphasis added).

Here, Appellee waited approximately 230 days after deposing Appellants’ expert to challenge the expert’s testimony, but he filed his Daubert motion approximately one month prior to the pretrial conference and within the time limitation established by the pretrial scheduling order. Additionally, the trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing addressing Appellee’s Daubert motion approximately two weeks before the pretrial conference. Finally, following the trial court’s ruling excluding the expert testimony, Appellants failed to move for a continuance or request another form of relief from the trial court. As a result, Appellants were unable to “clearly show” that the trial court’s decision to follow its pretrial scheduling order unfairly prejudiced Appellants. See id.Standard of Review

The standard of review for a trial court’s Daubert decision is an abuse of discretion. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999) (“Our opinion in Joiner makes clear that a court of appeals is to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when it ‘reviews[s] a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony.’ ” (citations omitted)); see also Booker, 166 So. 3d at 194 n. 2); Baan v. Columbia Cnty., 180 So. 3d 1127, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Hedvall v. State, 283 So. 3d 901, 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Bunin v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Additionally, Appellants’ reply brief acknowledged that “to the extent the trial court ruled that [the expert] was unqualified, that decision should be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” This Court’s decision only addresses the qualification prong of Daubert. Thus, as agreed upon by Appellants, the standard of review is abuse of discretion.Application of Daubert to Expert Testimony

“Under Daubert, the trial court not only evaluates a putative expert’s credentials, but also serves as a gatekeeper in ‘ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’ ” Baan, 180 So. 3d at 1133 (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993)). Appellants’ expert is a board certified, licensed physician in the specialty of obstetrics and gynecology and the subspecialties of reproductive endocrinology and embryology. However, Appellants retained him as their causation expert to testify that the mold in Appellee’s rental home caused their child’s renal agenesis and brain injury. Despite the expert’s extensive medical resume, he was not qualified to testify as to causation because he lacked the experience and knowledge to connect the mold to the child’s medical conditions. See White v. Ring Power Corp., 261 So. 3d 689, 696-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (excluding expert witness testimony where none of the experts had ever interpreted crane-loading data or used such data to investigate the cause of a crane accident or wire rope failure).

Appellants’ expert testified that he treated a patient with an unborn child with renal agenesis during his training, but his current practice specializes in infertility, and he does not typically treat patients like Mrs. Huggins. He testified that he has never been involved in cases involving the disappearance of a kidney in an unborn child, or cases where a kidney was observed but later disappeared before birth. Appellants’ expert never attempted to link mold to unilateral renal agenesis before this case and he never presented on the topic of mold in the developing kidney. He admitted that he is not a mold expert and knowledge of mold growth is outside his specialty. Additionally, he was unable to find scientific or medical literature directly linking mold to kidney disappearance in humans.

A mold expert testified that he believed within a reasonable degree of scientific probability that mold existed in Appellants’ home while the child was in utero, but he was unable to determine the quantity of mold that was present or whether the property would have passed a mold inspection. Thus, even if Appellants’ medical expert had relied on the mold expert’s report, which he did not,* he did not have enough independent knowledge or additional expert information to determine whether the mold was the cause of the child’s renal agenesis and brain injury. Because of the medical expert’s lack of experience with mold and its ability to cause renal agenesis, he could only speculate on the issue of causation and his opinion was “a classic example of the common fallacy of assuming causality from temporal sequence.” Perez v. Bell S. Telecomms, Inc., 138 So. 3d 492, 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). As a result, Appellants’ medical expert was not qualified to testify regarding causation, despite the minimal qualifications needed under Daubert.

AFFIRMED. (ROWE, C.J., and M.K. THOMAS, J., concur.)

__________________

*Appellant testified that he received no information reflecting the condition of the mold in the home during the pregnancy and when asked how he knew there was mold present during the relevant period he stated that he relied on basic knowledge and common sense that “mold doesn’t grow overnight.”* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

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 © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982