Perez v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc.
138 So. 3d 492
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Perez, a minor, sought damages from Bell South for alleged workplace stress causing premature birth and developmental deficits.
- Dr. Cardella linked placental abruption and preterm delivery to work-related stress and Bell South’s failure to limit hours and allow bathroom breaks.
- Trial court struck Cardella’s testimony as inadmissible under Frye; Bell South moved for summary judgment for lack of admissible causation evidence.
- Florida amended section 90.702 in 2013 to adopt Daubert standards, replacing Frye for expert admissibility and banning pure opinion under Marsh v. Valyou.
- Appellants argued Cardella’s opinion was admissible as pure opinion; appellee contended it remained inadmissible without scientific support.
- Court applied the Daubert framework retroactively, evaluating whether Cardella’s testimony constitutes scientific knowledge and reliable methods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cardella’s testimony is admissible under Daubert | Perez argues Cardella’s opinion is admissible as pure opinion under Marsh. | Bell South contends the testimony fails Daubert despite Marsh. | Inadmissible under Daubert; lack of scientific support makes it unreliable. |
| Whether Florida’s retroactive Daubert standard applies to this case | Perez relies on Marsh framework prior to 2013 amendments. | Bell South asserts no retroactive application to pending case. | Court applies 2013 Daubert standard retroactively to facts. |
| Whether the theory that workplace stress caused placental abruption is scientifically valid | Cardella’s opinion, based on personal observation, supports causation. | No scientific basis or consensus links stress to placental abruption. | Not scientifically supported; post hoc reasoning invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (establishes gatekeeping for scientific knowledge)
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (abuse of Daubert gatekeeping clarified; abuse of conclusions reviewed for fit)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (applies Daubert to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
- Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So.2d 543 (Fla.2007) (pure opinion exception to Frye for certain experts)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) (general acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- Gelsthorpe v. Weinstein, 897 So.2d 504 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) (admissibility of expert testimony based on clinical experience)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Tursi, 729 So.2d 995 (Fla.4th DCA 1999) (recognizes experiential testimony admissible under certain limits)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 880 So.2d 721 (Fla.2d DCA 2004) (trauma-related medical testimony based on experience admissible)
- McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.2005) (illustrates post hoc reasoning concern in causation)