Templer v. Frankel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Templer v. Frankel

873 So. 2d 594, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7335, 2004 WL 1161831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-42

StatusPublished

This text of 873 So. 2d 594 (Templer v. Frankel) 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

Templer v. Frankel, 873 So. 2d 594, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7335, 2004 WL 1161831 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEVIN, Judge.

We affirm the final judgment. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered documents. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The plaintiffs’ expert testified as to the same matter the documents would have illustrated: the standard of care the defendant-physician should have exercised, and how the patient’s care should have been coordinated. Therefore, the exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. See Parker v. State, 873 So.2d 270, 2004 WL 112875 (Fla. Jan. 22, 2004)(exclu-sion of letters to attorney not abuse of discretion where attorney testified to same facts contained in letters). We also hold that the trial court did not err in limiting the scope of the expert’s testimony. Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 854 So.2d 1264 (Fla.2003).

Affirmed.

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

SHEVIN, Judge.

We affirm the final judgment. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered documents. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The plaintiffs’ expert testified as to the same matter the documents would have illustrated: the standard of care the defendant-physician should have exercised, and how the patient’s care should have been coordinated. Therefore, the exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. See Parker v. State, 873 So.2d 270, 2004 WL 112875 (Fla. Jan. 22, 2004)(exclu-sion of letters to attorney not abuse of discretion where attorney testified to same facts contained in letters). We also hold that the trial court did not err in limiting the scope of the expert’s testimony. Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 854 So.2d 1264 (Fla.2003).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 So. 2d 594, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 7335, 2004 WL 1161831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/templer-v-frankel-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack