Neil Brown v. Esther Mittelman
152 So. 3d 602
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Non-party Dr. Neil Brown seeks certiorari to quash a discovery order denying objections to a subpoena duces tecum in a Florida negligence action arising from an auto collision.
- Plaintiff’s attorney referred the plaintiff to Dr. Brown; Dr. Brown treated under a letter of protection (LOP) while Lytal, Reiter joined as co-counsel for plaintiff.
- Defendant subpoenaed the most billing or billing knowledge personnel to produce documents about patients represented by both firms, LOP cases, and referrals from plaintiff’s attorneys.
- Trial court overruled Brown’s objections, compelling production of the requested documents.
- Rule 1.280(b)(5) limits discovery to an approximation of a doctor’s involvement as an expert witness and does not clearly apply to the questioned financial relationship.
- Court denies petition, upholding limited but not overly intrusive discovery of potential bias tied to the doctor-law firm relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 1.280(b)(5) applies to this discovery | Brown: rule prohibits this discovery | Mittelman: discovery permissible to reveal bias | No; rule does not apply to this financial relationship. |
| Whether discovery of the doctor-law firm relationship is permissible | Brown: not discoverable; no direct referral evidence | Mittelman: relations may reveal bias and are relevant | Permissible; broader but not overly intrusive discovery allowed. |
| Scope and balancing of financial discovery for treating physicians | Brown: limits should protect treating physicians | Mittelman: need bias information for fairness | Trial court acted within broad discretion; order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath, L.L.P. v. Malay, 133 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (recognizes bias based on financial relationships can be discovered)
- Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (financial relationship may be discoverable to impeachment)
- Springer v. West, 769 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (bias may be exposed through financial connections)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999) (extent of relationship affects bias and admissibility)
- Flores v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 787 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (referral arrangements can be a basis for impeachment)
- Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (limits on narrow discovery; protects truth-seeking)
- Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (discusses protective limits on financial discovery)
- Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (recognizes potential bias from LOP and referrals)
- Katzman v. Ranjana Corp., 90 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (clarifies that bias concerns extend beyond direct referrals)