Frank Special v. West Boca Medical Center
160 So. 3d 1251
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Special sued Dr. Baux and West Boca for negligence after Susan Special’s death following cesarean delivery; cause of death centered on amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) versus anesthesia/fluids management; conflicting expert testimony on AFE origin at trial; jury found no liability for defendants; Fourth District en banc reconsidered harmless-error standards and reversed to grant a new trial; district court had applied a “more likely than not” harmless-error standard; Florida Supreme Court adopted a no-possibility standard focusing on whether the error contributed to the verdict; case remanded for a new trial on this basis; majority and concurring opinions discuss cross-examination of Dr. Dildy and alleged witness tampering as harmful errors; concurrent opinions disagree on the standard and on the extent of evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper harmless-error standard in civil appeals? | Special argues for a civil-criminal-like no-possibility test. | Baux/West Boca advocate the adopted standard or maintain the lower threshold. | No reasonable possibility test adopted; burden on error beneficiary; harm shown if error contributed to verdict. |
| Was the exclusion of Dr. Dildy’s cross-examination harmful? | Dildy's overdiagnosis critique would undermine AFE cause if admitted. | Defense contends exclusion was harmless due to other evidence. | Harmful error; requires new trial. |
| Was the exclusion of witness-tampering evidence regarding Dr. Wolf harmful? | Evidence of intimidation could undermine credibility of autopsy conclusions. | Evidence properly excluded as hearsay/double hearsay nexus lacking. | Majority found harmful; remand for new trial (though concurrence notes limits on evidentiary scope). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error test focuses on effect on the trier of fact; required proof no contribution to verdict in criminal context)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable-possibility standard linked to beyond a reasonable doubt analysis)
- Gormley v. GTE Prod. Corp., 587 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1991) (burden to prove harmless error rests on beneficiary; discourages improper evidence)
- Jost v. Ahmad, 730 So.2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (witness-tampering evidence admissible when relevant and reasonably understood as intimidation)
- Manuel v. State, 524 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (admissibility of witness-intimidation evidence when tied to authority or knowledge of defendant)
- Lynch v. McGovern, 270 So.2d 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (concepts of fraud/consciousness of weak case and admission by conduct cited in harmless-error/context)