Narrative Opinion Summary
In this medical malpractice case, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's order that permitted limited discovery from a nurse consultant, Ms. Ellen J. Rieback. Ms. Rieback, who operates Medical Advisors, Inc. and Rieback Medical-Legal Consultants, was involved in the presuit investigation and the arrangement of expert witnesses. The defense aimed to depose her and subpoena documents to probe financial ties between her, the physician expert Dr. Kenneth Hammerman, and the plaintiff, suspecting potential bias. The trial court balanced the need for discovery against the protection of work product and presuit screening information, ultimately allowing inquiries into certain business aspects while safeguarding work product. The court rejected the plaintiff's reliance on Grimshaw v. Schwegel, noting its inapplicability due to differing circumstances regarding presuit documents. The petition for writ of certiorari was denied, and the court upheld the limited discovery scope, allowing subpoenas for specific financial documents related to Dr. Hammerman to determine any bias without breaching work product protections under Florida Statute § 766.106(5).
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Grimshaw v. Schwegelsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court distinguishes this case from Grimshaw v. Schwegel, which involved a specific document exempt from discovery, allowing for limited discovery in the present case.
Reasoning: The plaintiff's argument that Grimshaw v. Schwegel prohibits all discovery from presuit consultants is rejected, as that case involved a specific document that was exempt from discovery.
Discovery in Medical Malpractice Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court permits limited discovery from a nurse consultant involved in presuit investigations to examine potential bias in expert witness arrangements.
Reasoning: The court denies the petition but clarifies that the plaintiff retains the right to protect work product and presuit screening information.
Subpoena and Evidence of Biassubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court allows the subpoena of documents to potentially reveal bias in the expert witness's financial arrangements with the plaintiff.
Reasoning: The court ruled that such inquiries, while potentially leading to collateral impeachment, are valid as they may uncover evidence of the physician's bias.
Work Product Protectionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling maintains protection over work product and presuit screening documents, prohibiting inquiries into statements, discussions, or reports generated during the presuit process.
Reasoning: Documents related to the presuit screening process or work product are subject to the trial court's order, which prohibits inquiries into any work product, including statements, discussions, or reports generated during this process.