.

Defense Digest

Limiting the Opinions of Plaintiff’s Non-Retained Expert Witnesses Regarding Injury Causation and Permanency

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024

March 1, 2024

by Thomas J. Slogar and Frank L. Madia

Key Points:

  • Plaintiff’s non-retained experts are treating physicians, and their testimony at trial should be limited to their scope of treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis with respect to the injuries alleged. 
  • Plaintiff’s treating physicians lack the proper foundation to provide expert opinion testimony on medical causation and permanency unless they take the plaintiff’s history relating to an incident and review the records of the plaintiff’s other physicians.

When a plaintiff discloses a treating physician as a non-retained medical expert, this non-retained expert’s testimony should be limited to exclude testimony regarding medical causation and permanency unless there is a proper predicate for such testimony. To lay the proper predicate, the physician must have reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records from other treating physicians, and the physician should obtain a history from the plaintiff that describes the manner in which the plaintiff was allegedly injured. 

For instance, in a slip and fall case, the history should include the manner in which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. Where the treating physician fails to review the medical records from the plaintiff’s other medical providers and fails to obtain a history of how the plaintiff allegedly came to be injured, there is an argument that the non-retained expert/treating physician should be precluded from testifying about injury causation and permanency.

Pursuant to § 90.702, Fla. Stat., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and other applicable Florida law, a trial court must make two preliminary factual determinations prior to permitting expert testimony: (1) whether the expert testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue; and (2) whether the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to express an opinion on the matter.

Under Daubert, the trial court is specifically assigned a gatekeeper task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony, whether scientific or non-scientific, rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. Id. See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141, 148-49 (1999); Corwin v. Walt Disney World Co., 475 F.3d 1239, 1250 (11th Cir. 2007). 

In Cooper v. Marten Transp., Ltd., 539 Fed. Appx. 963, 967 (11th Cir. 2013), the Eleventh Circuit explained that causation “could not be determined through a physical examination and the chronology of events alone.” The court further noted in that case that neither physician explained the basis for their opinions. Id. 

Courts frequently exclude causation opinion testimony of expert witnesses who base their opinions on a plaintiff’s account of the facts without consideration of other possible causes of injury. See Carmody v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 5542534, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 18, 2015).

Moreover, even if an expert is qualified, the expert must have a sufficient factual predicate underlying those opinions. Florida Statute § 90.705(2), explicitly states: “[i]f the [opposing] party establishes prima facie evidence that the expert does not have a sufficient basis for the opinion, the opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible unless the party offering the testimony establishes the underlying facts or data.” 

The legislative history of the rule emphasizes that this subsection intends to provide protection for opposing counsel so that expert opinions that are completely unqualified will not be admitted and risk prejudicing the jury. See Florida Statute § 90.705, Law Revision Counsel Note (1976). “In this instance, the protection of using cross-examination to expose the flaws in the opinion is not sufficient in all cases.” Id.

In a recent slip and fall case in Broward County, Florida, the plaintiff disclosed a non-retained expert/treating physician who was a pain management specialist. This doctor had not been provided and had not otherwise reviewed any medical records regarding the plaintiff’s post-incident treatment, other than his own records. He had not obtained a history from the plaintiff of how the plaintiff had allegedly slipped and fallen or how the plaintiff was allegedly injured. In this particular case, the physician admitted in deposition that he was not retained to provide any opinion testimony regarding any permanent injury. 

The opinions of the physician regarding the plaintiff’s medical condition were based solely on subjective statements made by the plaintiff, that the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the incident (without any history of the incident itself or how the plaintiff came to be injured as a result of the incident), together with the medical treatment related to the physician’s care of the plaintiff (in a vacuum, without any medical treatment history related to the care and treatment provided by the plaintiff’s other treating physicians).
 
There was no record evidence of any attempt by the non-retained expert/treating physician to eliminate other possible causes of the plaintiff’s conditions. Additionally, there was no record evidence that this physician conducted a review of the plaintiff’s pre- or post-incident medical history. Accordingly, it was reasonable to conclude that the doctor intended to identify the condition for treatment purposes rather than to determine its exact source. See generally, Turner v. Iowa Fire Equipment, Co., 229 F.3d 1202, 1205 (8th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, none of the plaintiff’s medical records revealed information to demonstrate that the doctor made any “attempt to consider all the possible causes, or to exclude each potential cause until only one remained, or to consider which of two or more non-excludable causes was more likely to have caused the condition.” Id. at 1208 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding treating physician causation opinion, based exclusively upon the medical history obtained from the plaintiff, which indicated no respiratory problems, and the temporal relationship between the incident and the onset of symptoms); see also, e.g., State, Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. Martin, 690 So.2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that a doctor’s testimony did not constitute competent substantial evidence as to causation because it was based on speculation, made without knowledge of claimant’s relevant medical history, and based “virtually entirely” upon claimant’s false report of causal connection between the accident and a subsequent surgery); In re Paoli R. R. Yard PC’B Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that for purposes of determining admissibility of expert medical testimony, part of differential diagnosis is using standard techniques to rule out alternative causes and, thus, where defendant points to a plausible alternative cause and the doctor offers no explanation for why he or she has concluded that was not the sole cause, the doctor’s methodology is unreliable); Berry v. CSX Transp. Inc., 709 So.2d 552, 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that expert witness’ testimony regarding causation of a railroad employee’s malady was admissible in toxic tort litigation, as the expert employed a scientifically acceptable differential diagnosis method in an attempt to eliminate other possible causes of symptoms and his opinion was not based upon the employee’s personal history, medical records, physical examinations, and medical tests, but upon sufficient epidemiological data, facts, and personal observations); David v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 801 So. 2d 223, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

On the other hand, in the recent Broward County case, we argued that the defendants’ experts could opine regarding issues of causation because they actually applied standard techniques of differential diagnosis through the review of prior medical records, examinations, diagnostic films, discovery, depositions, investigation, statements, and photographs.

The Circuit Court in Broward County granted the defendants’ motion in limine to preclude causation opinions from the plaintiff’s treating non-retained physician. In our case, we had the perfect storm of the physician not having taken a history as to how the incident occurred or how the alleged injuries were caused by the incident, coupled with the plaintiff’s attorney not having provided any other treatment records to the physician, as well as the physician’s concession that he was not retained to provide an opinion on permanency. However, based on the case law, the argument to preclude opinion testimony by a treating physician as to causation and permanency should not hinge on whether the latter concession is made by the physician during deposition. 

*Tom is special counsel in our Orlando, Florida, office. He can be reached at (407) 420-4418 or tjslogar@mdwcg.com. Frank Madia is an associate in our Orlando office who can be reached at (407) 420-4410 or flmadia@mdwcg.com. Heather, also in our Orlando office, is an associate who can be reached at (407) 505-4680 or HCTruitt@mdwcg.com. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed.