GIW SOUTHERN VALVE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT C. SMITH, APPELLEE
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.
GIW Southern Valve Company appeals a $1,350,000 jury verdict in a personal injury case, challenging the trial court's admission of expert testimony from a non-medical psychologist regarding future brain deterioration. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding that a psychologist is not qualified to give opinions on future physiological effects of brain injury.
A psychologist is not qualified to give expert opinion testimony as to the future condition of a brain as the result of an accident. While psychologists may testify regarding existing mental conditions and existing organic brain damage, the lack of medical training disqualifies them from providing prognosis testimony about future physiological effects on the brain.
[1] A psychologist, who is not a medical doctor, is not qualified to give expert opinion testimony regarding the future deterioration of a person's brain as a result of an ac…
[2] The trial court's discretion in qualifying expert witnesses is not unfettered and may be subject to reversal for abuse.
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“However, we have been cited to and have located no authority permitting a psychologist to give expert opinion testimony as to the future condition of a brain as the result of an accident.”
Establishes the core holding that psychologists cannot testify about future brain conditions resulting from accidents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Robert C. Smith was injured in an accident and sued defendant GIW Southern Valve Company for personal injuries. At trial, plaintiff presente…
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 Expert Witness Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
In this personal injury suit which resulted in a jury verdict and judgment against defendant for $1,350,000, we reverse and remand for a new trial on damages.
We agree with defendant’s contention on appeal that there was reversible error in the trial court’s admission, over objection, of the testimony of an expert witness who was a clinical psychologist and clinical neu-ropsychologist and who was not a medical doctor. That testimony consisted of the opinion that because of the accident plaintiff’s “brain would deteriorate much more rapidly in the future” and an explanation thereof.
We agree with plaintiff that whether an expert witness is qualified to give opinion testimony is normally determined in the sound discretion of the trial court. We do not agree, however, that this is an unfettered discretion. See, e.g., Carver v. Orange County, 444 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); City Stores Company v. Mazzaferro, 342 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Mills v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 127 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). We would be remiss if we failed to correct what we believe to be an abuse of that discretion when, as we believe is clear here, the witness’s testimony was not without significant impact upon the outcome of the trial.
There is no argument with the proposition that a psychologist may properly give opinion testimony as to an existing mental condition, see Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191 (Fla.1980); Reese v. Naylor, 222 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), and existing organic brain damage. Executive Car & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. DeSerio, 468 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). However, we have been cited to and have located no authority permitting a psychologist to give expert opinion testimony as to the future condition of a brain as the result of an accident.
There is authority that a psychologist is not qualified to give opinion testimony as to whether existing brain damage was the result of a particular accident. Executive Car, and cases cited therein. We believe the underlying rationale for excluding that type of opinion testimony requires the exclusion of the type of testimony in issue here. That rationale involves the lack of qualifications of a non-medical witness on a medical subject. We have no doubt that the matter of providing a prognosis as to future physiological effects upon the plaintiff’s brain of a particular accident is a medical subject no less than is the subject of causation in the first instance, i.e., whether an accident caused existing brain damage. Just as, relative to causation, a witness who is a psychologist and not a medical doctor lacks qualifications to trace retrospectively what would occur to the brain from a given trauma, see Executive Car, so also does the witness (more specifically, the witness in this case) lack established qualifications to trace prospectively what would occur to the brain in the future.
Plaintiff, citing section 90.705 of the Evidence Code, contends that it was defendant’s burden to establish that the ex pert witness was not qualified in the field of his testimony. We disagree. Under section 90.705 “the burden of challenging the sufficiency of the basis for the opinion rests with the party against whom it is offered.” City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (emphasis added).
We do not conclude that appellant’s remaining points on appeal are meritorious.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mark S. Grenitz, M.D. v. Tomlian, 858 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2003)…the majority’s categorical rule that a neuropsy- [*1011] chologist can never testify as to the cause of brain damage or the majority’s approval of the alleged conflict cases to the extent they adopt such a rule. See GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bishop v. Baldwin Acoustical & Drywall, 696 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Thus, I would approve the Fourth District’s opinion in full and its reasoning both in this case and in Cruz. ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs. . Alternatively, I…1 / 4
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Gates McDonald & Co. v. Lawrence, 488 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…concerning the causal connection between the claimant’s physical injuries and the claimant’s development of a mental disorder or condition.1 Nor is this case controlled, contrary to the appellants’ assertion, by GIW Southern Valve Company v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985) which holds that although a psychologist may properly give opinion testimony as to an existing mental condition, including organic brain damage, he may not be permitted to give his opinion as to the future physiological effects t…
-
Loomis v. Dimitrios Kaplaneris and Georgia Kaplaneris, 519 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…t refused to permit an examination by a “vocational rehabilitative counselor.” Although a psychologist may in some instances be qualified to give opinion testimony about subjects classifiable as “medical”; see, e.g., GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); and so may display more characteristics in common with physicians than would the counselor in Barry, we do not believe that the language of rule 1.360(a) contemplates examination by a psychologist. At one time the Florida rule a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1980)
- Mills v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 127 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Executive CAR & Truck Leasing, Inc. v. Alberta DeSERIO, 468 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Carver v. Orange Cnty., 444 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- City OF Hialeah v. Lea Ann Weatherford, 466 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Moore v. State, 222 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Reese v. Naylor, 222 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- City Stores Co. v. Mazzaferro, 342 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)