UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
FRIEDMAN CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, P.A., ETC., RESPONDENT
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.
United Automobile Insurance Company sought a second-tier writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court appellate division's dismissal of its petition challenging a county court discovery order. The county court had compelled United's medical expert witness to produce IME and peer review reports and financial information. The court granted the petition and quashed the dismissal, holding that such discovery can only be compelled under the most unusual or compelling circumstances.
Production of an expert witness's financial and business records may be compelled only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances, ordinarily only when the expert witness has falsified, misrepresented, or obfuscated required data. Here, no such circumstances existed in the record, so the discovery order was improper.
[1] Production by an expert witness of financial and business records may be compelled only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances, ordinarily when the expert wit…
[2] An expert witness shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as an expert witness or income derived from other services.
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“production by an expert witness of financial and business records may be compelled "only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances" ordinarily only "[w]hen it is disclosed or made apparent to the trial court that [the expert] witness has falsified, misrepresented, or obfuscated the required data."”
Establishes the standard for compelling expert witness financial and business record production under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnited's medical expert witness received a discovery order requiring production of a list of IME and peer review reports prepared within the last thre…
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 Second-Tier Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
CONFESSION OF ERROR
United Automobile Insurance Company (“United”) petitions this Court for a second-tier writ of certiorari quashing the circuit court appellate division’s order dismissing United’s certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction. In the petition before the appellate division, United sought relief from the county court’s order compelling its medical expert witness to produce a list of IME and peer review reports that he prepared within the last three years as well as financial information pertaining to his earnings from United or third party vendors.
Based on the authority of Buck v. Chin, 19 So.3d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), and the respondent’s proper confession of error, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the circuit court appellate division. In Buck, 19 So.3d at 1134, this Court granted certiorari review of a similar discovery order and held:
Beyond [the] limits [set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii) ], production by an expert witness of financial and business records may be compelled “only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances” ordinarily only “[w]hen it is disclosed or made apparent to the trial court that [the expert] witness has falsified, misrepresented, or obfuscated the required data.”
Id. at 1134 (quoting Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517, 521 (Fla.1996)) (citation omitted).1 Here, it is undisputed that the rec*214ord contains no such compelling circumstances to support the discovery ordered by the court below. Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the dismissal and remand the cause to the appellate division for further consistent proceedings.
Petition granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996)
- Buck v. Josee Chin, 19 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)