CURTIS MELTZER, M.D., DANIEL DIANA, M.D., ARTHUR SHER, M.D., AND SANFORD ROBBINS, M.D., PETITIONERS,
v.
HOLLY CORALLUZZO AND ANITA CORALLUZZO, RESPONDENTS
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.
A doctor cannot be compelled to render an expert opinion when they have no knowledge of the facts or prior contact with the patient.
[1] A non-treating physician cannot be compelled to render expert testimony when they have no knowledge of the facts, have not agreed to testify, and have never examined or t…
[2] A doctor is not required to render an expert opinion on a case where they have no prior knowledge of the facts or previous contact with the patient.
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 intelligenceA patient sued a doctor and other shareholders of a professional corporation for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability. The patient sought…
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 Protective Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Holly Coralluzzo, the respondent/patient in a medical malpractice action, sued Dr. Philip Freedland, a shareholder in Radiology Associates, a professional corporation. She also sued individually the other shareholders in Radiology Associates, the petitioners/physicians.
Coralluzzo alleged that Dr. Freedland was acting on behalf of Radiology Associates and that the petitioners were vicariously liable for his negligence. Coralluzzo deposed two of the petitioners, Drs. Sher and Robbins, asking for an expert opinion on Coralluzzo’s X-rays. Dr. Sher sought a protective order which was denied. Dr. Robbins declined to interpret the X-rays which he had never seen before. Coralluz-zo then moved to strike the defense pleadings. The trial court denied the motion but ordered the physicians to answer questions about the X-rays. A writ of certiorari by the petitioners followed.
We agree with the petitioners that a doctor is not required to render an expert opinion where, as in this case, he has no knowledge of the facts and has had no previous contact with the patient. This court held in Young v. Metropolitan Dade County, 201 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 207 So. 2d 690 (Fla.1967), that a non-treating physician could not be required to render expert testimony where he “had absolutely no knowledge of the facts[,] had not agreed to render expert testimony at deposition or at trial for either party, and ... had never examined or treated the plaintiff at any time.” Cf Kridos v. Vinskus, 483 So. 2d 727, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (detective subpoenaed to testify as an expert “may not willy nilly be compelled to testify purely because he is an expert, but only because he has information bearing rather directly on the case”). We, therefore, quash the order under review which provides to the contrary.
If these physicians form an expert opinion prior to trial, they will, of course, be expected to inform counsel for Coralluzzo and be deposed accordingly. See Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1), (3).
Certiorari granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Rodriguez, 851 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…. 1st DCA 1996); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 [*283] So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995)(stating that discovery of certain kinds of information may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature, including work product); Meltzer v. Coralluzzo, 499 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(granting certiorari and quashing order requiring discovery of physicians’ expert opinions when they had no knowledge of the facts and no previous contact with the patient). . "Because the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are mode…
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Morejon (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…al court’s order departed from the essential requirements of the law. It is well-settled that an unretained expert cannot be compelled to render an expert opinion where he lacks knowledge of the facts of the case. See, e.g., Meltzer v. Coralluzzo, 499 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Young v. Metro. Dade Cty., 201 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). A court errs in compelling an expert “to testify when he ha[s] not been retained by the part[ies] and ha[s] no specific knowledge of the case, in contrast to…
Authorities Cited
- Helene Young v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 201 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Young, 207 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1967)
- Kridos v. Vinskus, 483 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)