Buck v. Chin, 34 Fla. L. Wkly. D2100 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 14, 2009)

In this med mal case, the 3d DCA, on certiorari review, found that the record did not justify an expanded discovery search into the financial records of the defendant’s medical expert. At his deposition, the defendant’s expert testified that 50% of his work was for defendants and 50% was for plaintiffs. The expert’s interrogatory answers revealed that 2/3’s of his expert testimony income came from giving testimony on behalf of med mal defendants, and most of the defense work in cases insured by State Farm.

The DCA found that the inconsistency between the deposition and interrogatory answers did not rise to the level of “unusual or compelling circumstances.” As such, the DCA found that the party seeking discovery was limited to the discovery set forth in Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280 (b)(4)(A)(iii).
The opinion downplays the inconsistencies noted above; stating that essentially (1) it is not surprising that answers formed “in the serenity of a lawyer’s office” differ from answers solicited during a deposition, and (2) that the evidence solicited already is sufficient to show the jury that the expert is a “hired gun.”
Buck v. Chin, 34 Fla. L. Wkly. D2100 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 14, 2009)