Raymond C. Santa Lucia, Ph.D. v. Fernando R. Diaz, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raymond C. Santa Lucia, Ph.D. v. Fernando R. Diaz, M.D.

224 So. 3d 916, 2017 WL 3642893, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12116

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 25, 2017

DocketCase 2D15-4901

StatusPublished

This text of 224 So. 3d 916 (Raymond C. Santa Lucia, Ph.D. v. Fernando R. Diaz, M.D.) 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

Raymond C. Santa Lucia, Ph.D. v. Fernando R. Diaz, M.D., 224 So. 3d 916, 2017 WL 3642893, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12116 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

In this medical malpractice action, Raymond Santa Lucia appeals from the cost judgment rendered after a jury verdict in his favor. He first contends the trial court abused its discretion in excluding from the cost judgment fees for Lawrence Forman and Dr. Hartley Mellish, the experts who provided testimony on the specific economic losses he incurred as a result of his injuries. The appellees properly concede Santa Lucia is entitled to recover these fees to the extent he can establish the fees were reasonable and necessary. See Payne v. Spier, 562 So.2d 440, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable expert fees for a rehabilitation expert and economist).

Santa Lucia also argues the trial court erred by excluding expert witness fees for three physicians who testified during the trial. The trial court determined the doctors could not be considered experts because they had treated Santa Lucia. A treating doctor can be considered an expert where he provides expert opinion testimony. See Field Club, Inc. v. Alario, 180 So.3d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Clair v. Perry, 66 So.3d 1078, 1079 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). Here, as the *917 appellees properly concede, the trial court erred when it found that one of the treating doctors, Dr. John Bach, could not be considered an expert for the purposes of awarding fees. Dr. Bach was listed as an expert and in fact provided expert testimony. Accordingly, the trial court should have allowed Santa Lucia to recover a reasonable expert witness fee for his testimony. We agree with the appellees, however, that the trial court properly determined that Santa Lucia’s remaining treating doctors could not be considered as experts for the purposes of awarding expert fees.

Accordingly, we reverse the final cost judgment and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable fees to be awarded for Lawrence Forman, Dr. Mellish, and Dr. Bach.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with directions.

LUCAS and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

In this medical malpractice action, Raymond Santa Lucia appeals from the cost judgment rendered after a jury verdict in his favor. He first contends the trial court abused its discretion in excluding from the cost judgment fees for Lawrence Forman and Dr. Hartley Mellish, the experts who provided testimony on the specific economic losses he incurred as a result of his injuries. The appellees properly concede Santa Lucia is entitled to recover these fees to the extent he can establish the fees were reasonable and necessary. See Payne v. Spier, 562 So.2d 440, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover reasonable expert fees for a rehabilitation expert and economist).

Santa Lucia also argues the trial court erred by excluding expert witness fees for three physicians who testified during the trial. The trial court determined the doctors could not be considered experts because they had treated Santa Lucia. A treating doctor can be considered an expert where he provides expert opinion testimony. See Field Club, Inc. v. Alario, 180 So.3d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Clair v. Perry, 66 So.3d 1078, 1079 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). Here, as the *917 appellees properly concede, the trial court erred when it found that one of the treating doctors, Dr. John Bach, could not be considered an expert for the purposes of awarding fees. Dr. Bach was listed as an expert and in fact provided expert testimony. Accordingly, the trial court should have allowed Santa Lucia to recover a reasonable expert witness fee for his testimony. We agree with the appellees, however, that the trial court properly determined that Santa Lucia’s remaining treating doctors could not be considered as experts for the purposes of awarding expert fees.

Accordingly, we reverse the final cost judgment and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable fees to be awarded for Lawrence Forman, Dr. Mellish, and Dr. Bach.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with directions.

LUCAS and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 So. 3d 916, 2017 WL 3642893, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-c-santa-lucia-phd-v-fernando-r-diaz-md-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack