CHRISTOPHER JON DUNGAN AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF BRANICA VRABEC DUNGAN, DECEASED
v.
MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, JAMES M. WELDEN, III, M.D., FLORIDA HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE, ETC., ET AL

Fla. 5th DCA | 2020-06-11
No. 19-3225
45 Fla. L. Weekly D829 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2020) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

A medical negligence plaintiff's estate representative sought certiorari review of a trial court order allowing the defendant physician to file an errata sheet substantially changing his deposition testimony. The appellate court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner failed to establish irreparable harm but noted the petitioner retained remedies including reopening the deposition and cross-examining the witness at trial.


Holding

The court dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to establish irreparable harm necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold for certiorari review. Although the defendant was permitted to make substantive changes to his deposition testimony under the applicable rule, the petitioner retained adequate remedies including reopening the deposition for further inquiry and impeaching the witness through cross-examination at trial.


Key Quotes

“While Dr. Weldon was permitted to make substantive changes to his deposition testimony pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(e), Petitioner is not required to simply accept the amended testimony.”

Establishes that while the rule permits amendments, the opposing party retains meaningful remedies and is not bound by the changes.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Dr. James Weldon, a defendant in a medical negligence case, filed an errata sheet to his deposition transcript that substantially changed his testimon…

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.


Opinion of the Court

HARRIS, J.

Christopher Dungan petitions this Court for certiorari review of the lower court’s order permitting the defendant in a medical negligence case, Dr. James Weldon, to file an errata sheet to his deposition transcript. Through his errata sheet, Dr. Weldon substantially changed his testimony about material issues involved in the litigation.

Because Petitioner failed to establish that the lower court’s order caused irreparable harm, we must dismiss the petition. See Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mahon, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D829 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr. 9, 2020).

We write specifically to note that, while Dr. Weldon was permitted to make substantive changes to his deposition testimony pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(e), Petitioner is not required to simply accept the amended testimony.

Dr. Weldon has put himself in a position where his deposition can be re-opened to allow

Petitioner to inquire about the changed testimony. See Feltner v. Internationale Nederlanden Bank, N.V., 622 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The original and changed answers can also be used to cross-examine and to impeach Dr. Weldon at trial.

See Motel 6, Inc. v. Dowling, 595 So. 2d 260, 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). By denying this petition, we are simply concluding that Petitioner has not met the jurisdictional threshold of showing irreparable harm.

PETITION DISMISSED.

ORFINGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 2


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw