Peck v. Messina

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peck v. Messina

523 So. 2d 1154, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 139, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 47, 1988 WL 348

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1887

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 523 So. 2d 1154 (Peck v. Messina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peck v. Messina, 523 So. 2d 1154, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 139, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 47, 1988 WL 348 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter involves a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order which directed petitioner to produce a report of an expert witness who is expected to testify for petitioner at trial in her action against respondents for medical malpractice. The expert’s report was prepared at petitioner’s request to determine whether there was a medical basis for a malpractice action.

We deny the petition and, in doing so, we embrace the decision reached in Mims v. Casademont, 464 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the third district held that “reports prepared by experts expected to testify at trial are not protected by the work product privilege and are discoverable.” Id. at 644. We do note that the legislature has recently provided a discovery privilege in medical malpractice actions for work product, such as the report here, generated by the presuit screening process. See § 768.57(5), Fla.Stat. (1985). Petitioner admits, however, that section 768.57(5) is not applicable to this case because her malpractice action was filed before the statute became effective. See § 768.57(10), Fla.Stat. (1985).

The petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is denied.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREAD GILL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This matter involves a petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order which directed petitioner to produce a report of an expert witness who is expected to testify for petitioner at trial in her action against respondents for medical malpractice. The expert’s report was prepared at petitioner’s request to determine whether there was a medical basis for a malpractice action.

We deny the petition and, in doing so, we embrace the decision reached in Mims v. Casademont, 464 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the third district held that “reports prepared by experts expected to testify at trial are not protected by the work product privilege and are discoverable.” Id. at 644. We do note that the legislature has recently provided a discovery privilege in medical malpractice actions for work product, such as the report here, generated by the presuit screening process. See § 768.57(5), Fla.Stat. (1985). Petitioner admits, however, that section 768.57(5) is not applicable to this case because her malpractice action was filed before the statute became effective. See § 768.57(10), Fla.Stat. (1985).

The petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is denied.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREAD GILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 1154, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 139, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 47, 1988 WL 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-messina-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack