ANN R. WILSON AND DOROTHY MAE HEASTIE, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF NATHANIEL WILSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
HEALTH TRUST, INC.-THE HOSPITAL COMPANY; HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE CORP. D/B/A PLANTATION GENERAL HOSPITAL; RAPHAEL ARANGO, M.D.; RAPHAEL ARANGO, M.D., P.A.; TARANCO & ASSOCIATES ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP, P.A., D/B/A PLANTATION TAMARAC ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP, P.A. AND HILLARY BERGMAN (A/K/A HILLARY MENDELSOHN), C.R.N.A., 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 a medical malpractice case arising from a patient's brain damage during anesthesia administration, the appellate court affirmed a defense verdict, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony from a treating physician who was not pre-disclosed as an expert because the plaintiff failed to raise the admissibility objection at trial.
The appellate court affirmed the defense verdict, holding that because the plaintiff did not raise the admissibility objection in the trial court, the appellate court would not consider the propriety of the evidence's admissibility on appeal. The court noted it would not review evidentiary admissibility except on grounds argued to the trial court.
[1] An appellate court will not consider the admissibility of evidence on grounds not argued to the trial court.
[2] A treating physician may testify as to their opinion based on the results of a test they ordered, even if not disclosed as an expert witness, provided they are disclosed…
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“Plaintiffs' argument on appeal, that they were surprised and unfairly prejudiced because this treating physician was not listed as an expert sixty days prior to trial, was not made in the trial court. We therefore affirm under the principle that appellate courts will not consider the propriety of the admissibility of evidence except on the grounds which were argued to the trial court.”
Establishes the procedural basis for affirming—plaintiff forfeited the argument by not raising it at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring surgery, the patient stopped breathing and suffered extensive brain damage. The central dispute was whether this resulted from defendants' negl…
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 Appellate Review Of Evidentiary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The opinion of this court filed May 18,1994 is withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted. Appellants’ motion for rehearing, considered in light of this substituted opinion, is denied.
Plaintiffs appeal a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case, arguing that the trial court should not have permitted a treating physician, who was not disclosed by the defendants to be an expert, to testify as to his opinion based on the result of a test he ordered. His opinion, which was that the test showed that the patient had suffered an allergic reaction, went to the crux of the issue on liability, which was whether it was defendants’ negligence during the administration of anesthesia, or an allergic reaction to the anesthesia, which caused the patient to stop breathing and suffer extensive brain damage during surgery. We affirm.
The court’s pretrial order required that experts be disclosed 60 days prior to trial and that all other witnesses be disclosed 20 days prior to trial. The defendants did not name this treating physician as an expert, however both sides named him as a witness 20 days before trial.
While we do not know if the defendants were sandbagging plaintiff here, we do note that this treating physician ordered a test which he testified that he did not need or use in his treatment, but which just happened to demonstrate that an allergic reaction, not medical negligence, caused the patient’s brain damage.-
We do observe from time to time, particularly in medical malpractice cases, maneuvering which goes on to delay the disclosure of the names of experts, the lack of cooperation in setting the depositions of the experts, and the things that occur during these depositions to obstruct full disclosure. Trial courts should exercise caution in admitting undisclosed opinion evidence when it has not been properly disclosed. Excluding the testimony will not only encourage proper disclosure, but will also be less likely to constitute the type of prejudicial error which would require a new trial.
Plaintiffs’ argument on appeal, that they were surprised and unfairly prejudiced because this treating physician was not listed as an expert sixty days prior to trial, was not made in the trial court. We therefore affirm under the principle that appellate courts will not consider the propriety of the admissibility of evidence except on the grounds which were argued to the trial court. Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1985).
We find no error in the other issues raised by plaintiffs and therefore affirm.
KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)…Appellate review is therefore limited to the specific grounds for objection raised at trial. Lynx Transp. v. Atkinson, 720 So. 2d 600, 600-01 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Clock v. Clock, 649 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Wilson v. Health Trust, Inc., 640 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court cannot consider any ground for objection not presented to the trial court. See Steinhorst, 412 So. 2d at 338; see also Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473, 496 (Fla.2009) (ho…
-
Keller Indus. v. LeNora Volk and John Volk, Jr., 657 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…within the trial court’s discretion. Unless there is meaningful disclosure of opinions in a properly noticed deposition given for that purpose, there can be no true disclosure of the expert witness.5 Our observations in Wilson v. Health Trust, Inc., 640 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) are particularly relevant here: We do observe from time to time ... maneuvering which goes on to delay the disclosure of the names of experts, the lack of cooperation in setting the depositions of the experts, and the things…
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)