MALCOLM MACKENZIE, PETITIONER,
v.
YVONNE MEIS, TRUSTEES OF MEASE HOSPITAL, INC. AND LOIS MACKENZIE, 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.
The court held that the petitioner failed to meet the jurisdictional requisites for a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order denying a motion to compel deposition answers.
Petitioner sought to depose Dr. Pittman, the treating physician of respondent Meis, and ask hypothetical questions regarding the standard of care. The…
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 Work Product Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order in a common law action denying petitioner’s motion to require answers upon certification to certain questions asked deponent in his deposition.
Respondent Meis instituted an action against petitioner and the other respondents for malpractice. The deponent, Dr. Pittman, was Meis’ treating physician. Before Dr. Pittman’s deposition was taken, Meis’ counsel held a conference with him and elicited his opinion as to whether Meis had received the proper standard of care in the community by petitioner. A charge of-$80 was made by Dr. Pittman for this conference.
The questions certified by petitioner’s counsel seeks to elicit from Dr. Pittman, using a hypothetical question, his opinion as to whether or not petitioner violated the standard of care in the community. The lower court held, in effect, that this information was protected by the work product rule, citing Carlson v. Pinellas County, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 703, as modified in 242 So.2d 714.
In Shell v. State Road Department, Fla.1961, 135 So.2d 857, the Supreme Court recognized that interlocutory orders at common law are reviewable by certiorari when it is clearly apparent that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law and that the petitioner does not have a full and adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. Wolf v. Industrial Supply Corporation, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 30.
Petitioner has failed to meet the jurisdictional requisites outlined in Wolf and Shell, supra.
The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby
Denied.
LILIES, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacKENZIE v. Meis, 290 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 282 So. 2d 654. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Shell v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 135 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1961)
- Wolf v. Indus. Supply Corp., 62 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1952)
- Pinellas Cnty. v. Carlson, 242 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1970)
- Hamilton Elec. v. Polk Cnty. Abstract Co., 227 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)