Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v. GEICO General Insurance Co.
103 So. 3d 200
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Steinger, Iscoe & Greene represents Washington in an uninsured motorist claim against GEICO.
- GEICO sought pretrial discovery via expert interrogatories; Washington objected as burdensome and because no retained experts.
- Plaintiff admitted some treating physicians would render expert opinions on causation, permanency, and future damages.
- GEICO sought to depose the law firm’s office manager for information about the law firm–physician relationship and financial dealings.
- Trial court denied protective order for some categories, ordered production with redactions and privilege logs; petition granted to quash and remand.
- Court addresses whether a treating physician may be treated as an expert for discovery and whether a law firm’s relationship with treating physicians may be probative for bias; remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a treating physician an expert subject to expert interrogatories? | Washington argues treating physicians may be exposed to bias discovery. | GEICO contends treating physicians are akin to experts and may be interrogated. | Bias discovery allowed; treating physician can be treated as hybrid witness for discovery. |
| May a plaintiff’s law firm be subjected to discovery about its relationship with treating physicians? | GEICO asserts broader access due to financial ties and referral potential. | Steinger argues privacy and privilege protect non-parties; limits apply. | If a referral relationship exists, extent of financial connections may be discovered; otherwise limited; prematurity remanded. |
| Was the trial court’s production order premature and in need of remand? | Discovery should proceed to uncover bias; court should permit more discovery. | Production was overbroad without showing referral or bias. | Order quashed; remand for proceedings consistent with balancing interests and safeguards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (recognizes broad discovery in non-party context when necessary to truth-seeking function of trial)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 788 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1999) (discovery from insurer regarding relationship with an expert)
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (limits on financial bias discovery for retained experts (context))
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. German, 12 So.3d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (treating physician as hybrid witness; bias inquiry permitted; balance standard shared with experts)
- Flores v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 787 So.2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (referrals as basis for impeachment of treating physician)
- Rediron Fabrication, Inc. v. Katzman, 76 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (extent of financial connection to witness relevant to bias)