Intramed, Inc. v. Guider
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12115
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Guider sued Intramed, Inc. for pharmaceutical malpractice alleging the wrong drug was dispensed.
- A jury awarded approximately $1.95 million for damages, including $1.4259 million future medical expenses and $395,000 future pain and suffering for a 92-year-old plaintiff.
- Liability was admitted, but the trial proceeded on damages; the judgment was reversed for a new trial on damages.
- Key issue: late disclosure of an expert (Dr. Lichtblau) who valued future care and life expectancy.
- Guider disclosed Lichtblau on August 23, 2010, after the May–July expert disclosures; deposition occurred September 23, four days before trial.
- The trial court denied stipulations to strike Lichtblau and did not order a Rule 1.360 examination; defendant lacked a rebuttal expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion on expert disclosure and continuance | Guider contends late Lichtblau disclosure was warranted and continuance unnecessary. | Intramed argues late disclosure prejudiced defense and required strike or continuance. | Yes; error requiring new damages trial; denial of continuance improper. |
| Whether closing arguments improperly punished the defendant rather than addressed damages | Guider's counsel urged meaningful accountability and damages for harm. | Closing arguments are permissible advocacy within trial proceedings. | Yes; improper rhetoric shifted focus to punishment, not damages, warranting reversal. |
| Whether the speedy-trial provision and scheduling considerations affected the fairness of damages proceedings | Guider used section 415.1115 to advance trial given age/health. | Section 415.1115 cannot shield late disclosures or cripple defense. | Yes; court abused by failing to allow rebuttal and Rule 1.360 examination; prejudicial effect on damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnival Corp. v. Pajares, 972 So.2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (closing arguments should avoid inflaming emotions and focus on evidence)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Revuelta, 901 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (closing arguments should align with proper issues and evidence)
- Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So.3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (limits on improper closing argument emphasis)
- Health First, Inc. v. Cataldo, 92 So.3d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (cited on closing-argument propriety)
- Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000) (guidance on trial error and evidentiary impact)
- Special v. Baux, 79 So.3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (standard for harmless error review; rev to be decided in related appeal)