SANTOS WRESTLING ENTERPRISES, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JUANA PEREZ AND GUSTAVO PEREZ, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this personal injury appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's exclusion of expert medical testimony from a non-treating physician who offered opinions on the etiology of the plaintiff's medical condition based on hypothetical questions and independent review of medical records. The court held that an expert physician may render opinions on medical causation without having treated the patient, provided there is an adequate factual predicate.
An expert witness may appropriately render an opinion on medical causation through hypothetical questions or independent review of evidence without having treated the patient, provided the hypothetical question or records reviewed form an adequate factual predicate for the opinion.
[1] An expert witness may render an opinion on medical causation based on a hypothetical question that comports with the evidence.
[2] An expert witness may render an opinion on medical causation based on an independent review of the evidence, including medical records and depositions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“an expert may appropriately render such an opinion”
The court's holding that expert medical opinions on causation may be based on hypothetical questions or independent review of evidence without personal treatment of the patient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants (defendants below) appealed an adverse judgment in a personal injury action brought by Juana Perez. Appellants' expert witness, a medical d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Causation cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellants, defendants below, bring this appeal from an adverse final judgment in a personal injury action. We reverse. Appellants in their first point on appeal contend that the trial court erred in excluding the opinion testimony of their expert concerning the etiology of appellee Juana Perez’s medical condition offered by hypothetical questions and by an independent review of her medical records, including depositions of the treating physicians.
The basis of the trial court’s exclusion of appellants’ expert witness’s testimony, a medical doctor, was that he had not treated appellee Juana Perez, and hence there was no proper predicate. This presents the question of whether an expert may render an opinion on medical causation by way of hypothetical question or independent review of the evidence without treating the patient. In our opinion, an expert may appropriately render such an opinion. Brevard County v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); and Great American Ins. Co. v. Cornwell, 191 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).
In this case, the record shows that the hypothetical question which would have formed the basis of appellants’ expert witness’s opinion comported with the evidence and tracked the criteria for the basis of such an opinion. See, e. g., Christiansen v. State, 280 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); and Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Alternatively, appellants offered their expert witness’s opinion based upon his independent review of the evidence. The record also shows that the medical records, reviewed by appellants’ expert, comported substantially with the evidence adduced at trial. Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Accordingly, based upon the record herein, in our opinion the hypothetical question and the medical records formed an adequate predicate for appellants’ expert witness to render an opinion, without having been a treating physician. Therefore, because his opinion was crucial to appellants’ case, the trial court erred in excluding his opinion.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salem Dandashi and Mansham Dandashi v. Fine, 397 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d here shows that the hypothetical question which would have formed the basis of appellants’ expert witness’s opinion comported with the evidence and tracked the criteria for the basis of such an opinion. Santos Wrestling Enterprises, Inc. v. Perez, 367 So. 2d 685 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 372 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1979). All of the cases cited by appellees are distinguishable.4 The trial court erred in excluding all the testimony of Dr. Ballantyne. Because the testimony of the expert was critical, the er…
-
Pascual v. Dozier, 771 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…avelers Ins. Co., 388 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)(error to exclude expert witness whose testimony was essential to party’s case), disapproved on other grounds, Barth v. Khubani, 748 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1999); Santos Wrestling Enterp., Inc. v. Perez, 367 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(reversible error to exclude defense’s essential expert medical witness). In addition, it is error to strike a relevant witness where the opposing party is aware of the proposed testimony. See Lugo v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 48…
-
Bender v. State, 472 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…307 F. 2d 637, 641-42 (D.C.Cir.1962) (en banc); United States v. Phillips, 515 F.Supp. 758, 762-63 (E.D.Ky.1981); In re Swine Flu Immunization Products, etc., 533 F.Supp. 567, 578 (D.Colo.1980); see also Santos Wrestling Enterprises, Inc. v. Perez, 367 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 372 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1979). As the court in Birdsell explained: “With the increased division of labor in modern medicine, the physician making a diagnosis must necessarily rely on many observations and tests perf…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 314 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Steiger v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Brevard Cnty. v. Apel, 246 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Petering v. Osteen, 191 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Grover C. Cornwell, 191 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Christiansen v. State, 280 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)