GRADUS
v.
GLASCOCK
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.
This discovery dispute concerns whether a plaintiff must produce written physician reports examining her post-accident condition. The court ruled that physician reports prepared in anticipation of litigation constitute work product and are protected from discovery.
Written physician reports prepared in anticipation of trial constitute work product of the attorney and are not subject to discovery, whether they contain expert opinion or factual observations of the physician.
“It appears that it is well recognized in the state of Florida that any statements obtained from witnesses in preparation for trial are not subject to discovery.”
Establishes the foundational principle that witness statements prepared for trial are protected work product under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Gradus was involved in an accident and sought medical treatment from Dr. Thomas H. Nichols and Dr. Samuel L. Turek. The defendant Glascock m…
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 Witness Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
Order, August 25, 1965: This cause came on to be heard upon defendant’s motion to produce the written reports of all physicians, including Dr. Thomas H. Nichols and Dr. Samuel L. Turek, relative to or concerning the physical condition of the plaintiff since the accident alleged in the complaint; and the court having in its order dated August 12, 1965, reserved decision on said motion to produce and there having been written memoranda submitted to the court by the counsel for the parties and it appearing that the plaintiff has objected to the production of said reports on the ground that any such report would constitute the work product of the plaintiff and as such, would not be subject to discovery, the court finds as follows —
It appears that it is well recognized in the state of Florida that any statements obtained from witnesses in preparation for trial are not subject to discovery. This is so even though the statements may have been taken prior to the commencement of any action.
It is also recognized that statements of expert witnesses containing purely expert or opinion testimony are not subject to discovery. It would appear that a written report of a physician could contain testimony as to his observations as to things that he actually saw and observed which observations would seem to be in the same category as testimony of any other witness as to occurrences or physical things observed by him.
*163It would seem, therefore, that there is no greater reason for subjecting a statement made by a doctor to discovery by producing it for copying or inspection than there is any other witness. It is also true that a doctor’s testimony is not subject to discovery when he testifies purely and solely as an expert witness; therefore, in either event, the written reports of physicians would not be subject to discovery by copying or inspection if they were made to the plaintiff or his attorney in preparation for trial.
It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff be and she is hereby required to produce all written reports of all physicians before this court at 11 A.M., Friday, August 27, 1965, in order that the court may examine said reports and counsel for the plaintiff in order to determine whether said reports were made in preparation for trial.
Order, August 30, 1965: This cause came on to be heard on August 27, 1965 upon plaintiff’s motion to strike and upon defendant’s motion to produce; and the court having heard argument of counsel for the parties and pursuant to order of court dated August 25, 1965, counsel for plaintiff did produce before the court statements from Dr. Turek and Dr. Nichols which were examined by the court and found by the court to be the work product of the plaintiff and counsel, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that said motion to strike be and it is hereby granted as to sub-paragraph numbered 4(d) from defendant’s amended answer; and the defendant be and she is hereby given 15 days within which to amend; and it is further ordered and adjudged that said motion to produce be and it is hereby denied.