State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. German

12 So. 3d 1286, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10070
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 24, 2009·No. No. 5D08-3577·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order denying discovery of information from Respondent’s treating physicians. Curiously, although the trial court ordered Respondent to provide answers to so-called Boecher1 interrogatories, seeking information concerning the physicians’ involvement with Respondent’s counsel in prior cases, it denied Petitioner’s request to examine the physicians to uncover evidence of bias, as permitted by Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii). The trial court concluded that, because the physicians were “treating physicians,” rather than retained experts, bias discovery of this type was not permitted.

Without reaching the merits, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the writ because Petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal from the adverse discovery ruling. Chavarria v. Bau-tista, 922 So.2d 245, 246 (Fla. Sd DCA 2006).

PETITION DISMISSED.

GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur. TORPY, J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion.

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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. German, 12 So. 3d 1286, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10070 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

12 So. 3d 1286 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. German) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. German
12 So. 3d 1286 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)