Orlando Partner, Therese A. Savona, obtained an appellate victory from the First District Court of Appeal. The appellate court agreed that a plaintiff must provide financial discovery to the defense when the plaintiff identifies individuals as “hybrid” experts.
Prior to trial, CSK sought financial discovery from plaintiff and a well-known plaintiffs’ firm related to “hybrid experts/treating physicians.” The trial court agreed with CSK and ordered the well-known plaintiffs’ firm to provide financial information between its firm and the “hybrid” witnesses. Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the First District.
The appellate court dismissed the petition, finding the trial court did not depart from Florida law since plaintiff’s “hybrid experts/treating physicians” acted as experts retained for the purpose of trial – they were provided litigation binders with various medical records from plaintiff’s other providers with the intent to provide testimony of this additional treatment. The First District determined: “This is the work of an expert witness, not an ordinary treating physician.” In reaching its ruling, the First District explained: “A party’s label for a witness matters little. Instead, the substance of the testimony drives the analysis.”
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
