LAWRENCE FORMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
MALKA FINK, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, DANIEL FINK AND MONIQUE FINK, DANIEL FINK AND MONIQUE FINK, INDIVIDUALLY, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, INC., NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, STUART GROSS, ANTHONY LAI, THOMAS A. QUETEL, DINA CHUNG AND DINA CHUNG, M.D., P.A., RESPONDENTS; MALKA FINK, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, DANIEL FINK AND MONIQUE FINK, AND DANIEL FINK AND MONIQUE FINK, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS, V. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, INC. D/B/A UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HOSPITAL & CLINICS A/K/A NATIONAL CHILDREN'S CARDIAC HOSPITAL, NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, ANTHONY LAI, M.D., THOMAS A. QUETEL, M.D., DINA CHUNG, M.D., AND DINA R. CHUNG, M.D., P.A., 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 quashed portions of a discovery order compelling disclosure of a rehabilitation expert's prior work product and income, and discovery from a withdrawn medical expert, absent exceptional circumstances.
Discovery of an expert's prior work and income, and discovery from a non-testifying withdrawn expert, cannot be compelled absent exceptional circumstances.
[1] Discovery of a retained expert's prior work product and income from matters in which retained by counsel is not compellable without exceptional circumstances.
[2] Discovery from a non-testifying expert witness who has been withdrawn by the retaining party is not compellable absent exceptional circumstances.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence Forman, a certified rehabilitation administrator, and Malka Fink (through her parents) sought review of a trial court discovery order. The or…
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.
In this consolidated ease, petitioner, Lawrence Forman, a certified rehabilitation administrator, seeks review of that portion of a trial court order compelling discovery of all medical and legal evaluations petitioner conducted from 1990 through 1993, and evidence of income received on matters in which he was retained by an attorney during those years. We grant the petition and quash this portion of the order on the authority of Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (en banc).
Petitioner, Malka Fink, seeks review of another portion of the order compelling “full and complete discovery from Plaintiffs’ former medical expert Joan Pehta, M.D.,” an expert witness who had been withdrawn by petitioner. Because no exceptional circumstances were shown to compel discovery of an expert not expected to testify at trial, we grant the petition and quash this part of the trial court’s order. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4)(B); Lift Systems, Inc. v. Costo Wholesale Corp., 636 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Morgan v. Tracy, 604 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Gilmor Trading Corp. v. Lind Elec., Inc., 555 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ruiz ex rel. Ruiz v. Brea, 489 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (opinion on rehearing).
Petitions for writ of certiorari granted; order quashed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rocca v. Rones, 125 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ons on the same subject by other means. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5)(B) (emphasis added). The protection provided by rule 1.280(b)(5)(B) applies to experts initially disclosed as testifying witnesses that are later withdrawn as such. Forman v. Fink, 646 So. 2d 236, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). When an expert has been specially employed in preparation of litigation but is not to be called as a witness at trial, the facts known or opinions held are deemed to be work product and may be discovered only by a showing of…
-
Bailey v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 186 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…. Permitting the deposition of the opposing party’s retained, non-testifying expert under the circumstances presented constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Rocca v. Rones, 125 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Forman v. Fink, 646 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Morgan v. Tracy, 604 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)(B) provides: (b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order óf the' court in accordance with these rules, the scope of d…1 / 2
-
Dina Chung, M.D. v. Malka Fink, 672 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1996)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Forman v. Fink, 646 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), which concerns the appropriate scope of discovery necessary to impeach the testimony of an opponent’s expert medical witness.1 We addressed this same issue in Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1996). In accordance with our dec…
Authorities Cited
- Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Lift Sys., Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 636 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Gilmor Trading Corp. v. Lind Elec., Inc., 555 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Ruiz v. Cesar Brea, M.D., 489 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Morgan v. Tracy, 604 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)