Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Law firm’s
financial relationship with plaintiff’s treating physician — Trial court did
not depart from essential requirements of law by ordering law firm to provide
list of payments made to plaintiff’s treating physician over last 3 years

LYTAL, REITER, SMITH, IVEY & FRONRATH, L.L.P., Petitioner, v. JANET
MALAY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of MAURICE BAKER, Respondent.
4th District. Case No. 4D13-4016. March 5, 2014. Petition for writ of certiorari
to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County;
Cynthia Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312012CA000078. Counsel: Margaret Bichler of
Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Heather Wallace-Bridwell of Peterson Bernard, Stuart, for respondent.

(Damoorgian, C.J.) In the underlying negligence action arising from an
automobile accident, the trial court ordered the law firm to “provide a list of
all payments made to Dr. Theofilos [the plaintiff’s treating physician] over the
last 3 years (all client or patient information shall be redacted).” The
discovery encompasses all payments made in connection with the present or past
litigation. The doctor in this case is expected to 

provide expert opinions at
trial. The law firm petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the discovery
order.

A law firm’s financial relationship with a doctor is discoverable on the
issue of bias. See Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So.
2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Limiting discovery of this information would affect
the truth-seeking function of a jury, for the failure to present any ultimately
admissible information would diminish the jury’s right to assess the potential
bias of the witnesss.”). At his deposition, the doctor denied having any records
and provided “nebulous testimony” in connection with the number of his patients
who were represented by the law firm. Under these circumstances, the law firm is
an appropriate source of this information. Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A.
v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 200, 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial
court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.

Petition Denied. (Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.)