William Booker v. Sumter County Sheriff's Office/North American etc
166 So. 3d 189
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- William Booker appealed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits after medical causation testimony was admitted at the final hearing.
- Appellees relied on an independent medical examiner (Dr. Nocero) and a judge-appointed expert (Dr. Perloff) who cited published medical studies and reviewed Booker’s records and exams.
- Booker raised Daubert-based challenges to the experts’ testimony, but his first formal Daubert motion in limine was filed four days before the final hearing; a general objection was made earlier at a deposition.
- The Judge of Compensation Claims found Booker’s Daubert objection untimely, found the deposition objection facially insufficient, but nevertheless assessed the merits and admitted the experts’ testimony.
- On appeal the First DCA affirmed, holding the judge did not abuse discretion on timeliness, sufficiency, “pure opinion” or reliability/application under section 90.702 (Daubert).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Daubert objection | Booker: objection timely despite late motion; raised at deposition and before trial | Appellees: objection was untimely; basis known when IME report/deposition occurred | Court: untimely—should have been raised when report received or at deposition; review for abuse of discretion; judge did not abuse discretion |
| Facial sufficiency of objection | Booker: general Daubert statement at deposition was adequate notice | Appellees: deposition objection was too general to allow cure | Court: general objection insufficient; Daubert challenges must identify specific basis to let opposing counsel address defects |
| Pure opinion testimony exclusion | Booker: experts’ opinions were “pure opinion” based on clinical experience only | Appellees: experts relied on published studies plus exams and records | Court: opinions were not pure opinion; experts applied studies and facts, so admissible |
| Reliability/application under §90.702 (Daubert) | Booker: methods/principles unreliable or not applied | Appellees: experts used accepted studies and applied methods to Booker’s facts | Court: judge properly acted as gatekeeper, considered Daubert factors, and did not abuse discretion admitting testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (court as gatekeeper; reliability of expert testimony)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (abuse of discretion review of admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert applies to all expert testimony)
- Giaimo v. Florida Autosport, Inc., 154 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (Florida’s adoption and application of Daubert)
- Dirling v. Sarasota County Gov’t, 871 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (timeliness of Frye/Federal-type challenges tied to when basis becomes known)
- Perez v. Bell South Tel., 138 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (discussion of “pure opinion” exclusion)
- Club Car, Inc. v. Club Car (Quebec) Import, Inc., 362 F.3d 775 (11th Cir. 2004) (timeliness of Daubert objections)
- United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001) (non-exclusive factors for assessing methodology reliability)