Rhoades v. Rodriguez
212 So. 3d 1140
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rear-end motor-vehicle collision; Rodriguez sued Rhoades for negligence claiming injury and damages.
- Rhoades designated Dr. Steven Rundell, a biomechanical engineer, to opine on: forces/accelerations from the collision, effects on the human body, likelihood of tissue/bone damage, and comparison with forces from daily activities.
- Rodriguez filed a Daubert motion to exclude or limit Dr. Rundell’s testimony, including any opinion on whether her injuries were causally related to the crash.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court allowed Rundell to testify about the forces generated by the collision but barred him from testifying about (1) effects of those forces on the human body, (2) likelihood of tissue/bone damage, (3) comparisons to everyday forces, and (4) causation of Rodriguez’s injuries.
- Rhoades sought certiorari review, arguing post-Daubert standards have increased trial courts’ ability to exclude experts and that immediate review is necessary; he asked this court to recede from Bill Kasper Construction Co. v. Morrison.
- The Fifth District denied certiorari, declined to recede from Bill Kasper, and noted the Florida Supreme Court’s recent action on evidence-code amendments could moot the issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s pretrial limitation of Dr. Rundell’s testimony departs from the essential requirements of law warranting certiorari | Rodriguez argued the court properly excluded expert opinions that invade medical causation or lack reliable application to the facts | Rhoades argued exclusion of biomechanical causation and comparative-force opinions is legally erroneous and requires immediate review post-Daubert | Denied certiorari; no departure from essential requirements shown and postjudgment appeal remains adequate relief under Bill Kasper |
| Whether this court should abandon Bill Kasper and allow routine interlocutory certiorari of pretrial expert exclusions because Daubert broadened exclusion power | Rodriguez maintained existing precedent is sound and interlocutory review is unnecessary | Rhoades urged receding from Bill Kasper due to perceived greater pretrial exclusion post-Daubert and urged a new appellate standard | Court declined to recede from Bill Kasper; reaffirmed that immediate certiorari is not warranted in this posture |
| Whether recent procedural efforts to adopt Daubert materially change the certiorari analysis | Not argued to alter outcome | Rhoades cited Daubert’s adoption as reason for different appellate review | Court noted Florida Supreme Court’s decision on evidence-rule amendments could affect trial rulings and potentially moot the petition; nonetheless denied certiorari |
Key Cases Cited
- Bill Kasper Constr. Co. v. Morrison, 93 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (pretrial orders striking experts generally not reviewable by certiorari when adequacy of postjudgment appeal exists)
- Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 190 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2016) (irreparable harm and departure-from-essential-requirements standards for certiorari relief)
- Flanagan v. State, 625 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1993) (discussing Frye general-acceptance standard historically applied in Florida)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (original formulation of the general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000) (simple disagreement with trial court insufficient for certiorari relief)