DENISE YATES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., ADVANCE APPLICATORS, INC. AND CRAIG PRUZAN, 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 an automobile accident personal injury case, the trial court initially excluded evidence of the plaintiff's treating physician's license suspension but allowed cross-examination on this issue after the physician testified he had examined the plaintiff during the suspension period. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the physician opened the door to this evidence by testifying to a personal examination he had not actually performed.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion under Florida Statutes section 90.612(2) in allowing cross-examination about the license suspension as an additional matter affecting witness credibility, because the physician opened the door to this evidence by testifying that he had personally examined the plaintiff during the time his license was suspended.
[1] A witness's testimony about personal examination of a patient during a period of license suspension opens the door to cross-examination regarding that suspension.
[2] A trial court has discretion to permit inquiry into additional matters during cross-examination once the witness has opened the door to such inquiry.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters.”
The statutory framework governing cross-examination that permits trial courts discretion to allow inquiry into additional credibility matters.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Denise Yates was treated by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Jeffrey Katzell for injuries from an automobile accident. After Katzell began treating Ya…
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 Opening The Door (Evidence) cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant, the plaintiff in an accident ease, argues that the trial court erred in allowing her treating physician to be cross-examined about the fact that he was suspended from the practice of medicine. We conclude that her physician opened the door to that evidence and affirm.
Defendant’s treating physician was orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jeffrey Katzell. After plaintiff began treatment with Dr. Kat-zell, and prior to the trial, Dr. Katzell was suspended from the practice of medicine for six months. Both Dr. Katzell and plaintiff had filed motions in limine asking the trial court to prohibit evidence about the license suspension, which was from September 1995 to March 1996. The trial court granted the motions.
After testifying about treatment he rendered in the first half of 1995, Dr. Katzell was asked by plaintiffs counsel if he had seen plaintiff again, and he responded that he had seen her on December 16, 1995. He testified that he examined plaintiff, that she exhibited symptoms to him, that he found muscle spasm and tenderness, and that he tested her flexion and extension. He could have left no other impression with the jury but that he had personally examined her. The trial court then reconsidered its ruling on the motion in limine and permitted defense counsel to cross-examine Dr. Kat-zell about the fact that his license had been suspended when he had allegedly examined the plaintiff on December 16, 1995. Dr. Katzell explained that he had made a mistake in indicating that he had examined the plaintiff, and that he had been reading from another physician’s notes. Plaintiff argues that allowing evidence of the suspension was error. Section 90.612(2), Florida Statutes (1997) provides:
Cross-examination of a witness is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in its discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters. When Dr. Katzell testified that he had personally examined the plaintiff during a time when his license to practice medicine was suspended, he opened the door to the cross-examination about the suspension, which the court had previously ruled was inadmissible. This was an “additional” matter, under section 90.612(2), which the court had the discretion to allow, once the door was opened. We therefore affirm.
DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.