GLENDA PECK, PETITIONER,
v.
JOEL M. MESSINA, D.O. AND SUMESH CHANDRA, M.D., 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.
Court denied certiorari petition and held that expert reports prepared for trial testimony are not protected by work product privilege and are discoverable in medical malpractice actions, absent statutory protection under the newly enacted presuit screening statute.
Expert reports prepared by experts expected to testify at trial are not protected by the work product privilege and are discoverable.
[1] Expert reports prepared by experts expected to testify at trial are not protected by the work product privilege and are discoverable in civil litigation.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“reports prepared by experts expected to testify at trial are not protected by the work product privilege and are discoverable”
Court citing Mims v. Casademont to establish the rule governing expert report discoverability
Petitioner filed a medical malpractice action against two physicians and sought to withhold an expert's report prepared at her request to determine wh…
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 Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter involves a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order which directed petitioner to produce a report of an expert witness who is expected to testify for petitioner at trial in her action against respondents for medical malpractice. The expert’s report was prepared at petitioner’s request to determine whether there was a medical basis for a malpractice action.
We deny the petition and, in doing so, we embrace the decision reached in Mims v. Casademont, 464 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the third district held that “reports prepared by experts expected to testify at trial are not protected by the work product privilege and are discoverable.” Id. at 644. We do note that the legislature has recently provided a discovery privilege in medical malpractice actions for work product, such as the report here, generated by the presuit screening process. See § 768.57(5), Fla.Stat. (1985). Petitioner admits, however, that section 768.57(5) is not applicable to this case because her malpractice action was filed before the statute became effective. See § 768.57(10), Fla.Stat. (1985).
The petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is denied.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREAD GILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James D. Grimshaw, D.O. v. Schwegel, 572 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…uous. The legislature did not provide an exception to the discovery privilege for certain documents created during the presuit screening process when such documents are relied upon by experts who are expected to testify at trial. Cf Peck v. Messina, 523 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (prior to enactment of section 768.57(5), reports of experts expected to testify at trial were not protected by work product privilege). In so doing, it is apparent that the legislature considered that the exchange of information…
-
Warren Fin., Inc. v. Barnett Bank OF Jacksonville, N.A., 552 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1989)…rdinary check, stands on its own foundation as an independent, unconditional, and primary obligation of the bank. Pennsylvania v. Curtiss National Bank, 427 F. 2d 395 (5th Cir.1970); Riverside Bank v. Maxa, 45 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1950); Crosby v. Lewis, 523 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). People accept a cashier’s check as a substitute for cash because the bank stands behind the check, rather than an individual. National Newark & Essex Bank v. Giordano, 111 N.J.Super. 347, 268 A. 2d 327 (1970). Because the bank,…
-
First Am. Bank & Tr. v. Rishoi, 553 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…a summary judgment in favor of William M. Rishoi as receiver for Clara Lamstein and the business she operated under the name of Interamerican Business Consultants and Associates, Inc. This case is a logical sequel to our decision in Crosby v. Lewis, 523 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In Crosby v. Lewis, the Crosbys had purchased $180,000 in cashier’s checks, payable to Lamstein, from various banks and financial institutions. The checks were all delivered to Lamstein as investments. Lamstein’s business was l…
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
- Mims v. A. Carlos Casademont, M.D., 464 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)