Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida held that an expert may not testify on direct examination that the expert relied on consultations with colleagues or other experts in forming an opinion. The court reasoned that such testimony improperly bolsters the expert's opinion and may allow the expert to serve as a conduit for inadmissible hearsay opinions from nontestifying experts. The court quashed the First District's decision and directed that a new trial be ordered in the medical malpractice action.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an expert may testify on direct examination that the expert consulted with colleagues or other experts in forming the expert's opinion.
- Whether the admission of Dr. Weaver-Osterholtz's testimony concerning her consultations with other urologists was harmless error.
Holdings
- Under the Florida Evidence Code, an expert may not testify on direct examination that the expert relied on consultations with colleagues or other experts in reaching the expert's opinion.
- The error was not harmless because the competing expert opinions concerning the applicable standard of care were the focal point of the medical-malpractice trial.
Key quotations
“We hold that such testimony is inadmissible because it impermissibly permits the testifying experts to bolster their opinions and creates the danger that the testifying experts will serve as conduits for the opinions of others who are not subject to cross-examination.” (1033)
“We therefore hold as a matter of law that under the Florida Evidence Code an expert is not permitted to testify on direct examination that the expert relied on consultations with colleagues or other experts in reaching his or her opinion.” (1040)
“Because the trial court's error in allowing this testimony was not harmless, we quash the First District's decision affirming the judgment for the defendant with directions to order a new trial.” (1041)
Factual background
Beth Linn's ureter was cut during a diagnostic laparoscopy, but the injury was not timely diagnosed. Dr. Fossum performed a retrograde pyelogram that he interpreted as negative and adopted a watch-and-wait approach; the injury was later diagnosed at Emory University Hospital. At trial, defense expert Dr. Weaver-Osterholtz testified that Dr. Fossum met the standard of care after presenting the case to several other urologists in informal consultations, even though those physicians did not testify.
Procedural history
The Linns brought a medical-malpractice action against Dr. Fossum. The trial court admitted defense expert Dr. Weaver-Osterholtz's testimony that she consulted other urologists in determining the standard of care, and the jury returned a verdict for Dr. Fossum. The trial court denied posttrial relief, and the First District affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court accepted review based on conflict with Schwarz v. State and quashed the First District's decision, directing a new trial.
Remand instructions
The First District Court of Appeal's decision was quashed, with directions to order a new trial. The court approved Schwarz to the extent consistent with the opinion.