Standard for Expert Opinions Uncertain in Light of the Supreme Court of Florida’s Recent Decision

 

Case

The Florida Supreme Court has declined to follow the Florida Legislature’s decision around expert witness testimony requirements. On February 16, 2017, the Supreme Court of Florida declined to adopt the 2013 amendments to the Florida Evidence Code which replaced the Frye standard for expert witnesses with the Daubert standard. The ruling shows that the interplay between the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Legislature may create confusion and uncertainty for attorneys and judges about the standard they should apply for expert witness opinions going forward.

 

Florida Supreme Court

 

Background

In January 2013, the Florida Legislature amended the Florida Evidence Code regarding expert opinions. The purpose of the amendment was for Florida to shift from the Frye standard to the Daubert standard for expert witness opinions, in order to put Florida in line with the federal courts and most states. What’s the difference between the two?

  • The Frye Standard: an expert opinion based on a scientific technique is only admissible if such technique was “generally accepted” as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
  • The Daubert Standard: a more stringent and slow process, which requires additional hearings to determine the validity of expert opinion.

 

Ruling

The FL Supreme Court declined to adopt the new amendments, and therefore Florida will continue to use the Frye standard, unless or until challenged in a “proper case or controversy” where the Supreme Court of Florida has an opportunity to review the constitutional issues it referenced. The Court explained that even though it is the policy to adopt provisions of the Florida Evidence Code as the Legislature suggests, they have declined to on occasion “because of significant concerns about the amendments, including concerns about the constitutionality of an amendment.”

The Court noted ‘grave constitutional concerns’ with the change. The concerns were not discussed in detail in the opinion, but touched upon the constitutional right to a jury trial and denying access to the courts.

Justice Polston, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed with the majority for rejecting to replace the Frye standard, honing in on the fact that the Daubert standard is followed not only in federal courts, but also in “36 states.” Justice Polston continued, stating he knew of “no reported decisions that have held that the Daubert standard violates the constitutional guarantees” and in fact, cited to case law across the nation stating the opposite.

 

Impact

The ruling could have a substantial impact in the trial courts. For example, when a party objects to the admissibility of an expert witness opinion based upon the Daubert standard, the opposing party may argue that, based on the Court’s ruling, the Daubert amendments are unconstitutional. A party seeking to admit expert testimony could also argue that the amendments are procedural in nature, and because they were not adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida, the court should use the Frye standard in ruling on the motion.

Unless or until the FL Supreme Court rules differently on the issue, it appears this ruling is likely to cause confusion in courts across the state in applying the standard for admitting, challenging, or excluding expert opinions under the Florida Evidence Code.

 

 

Gina RhodesGina Rhodes is an associate at Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, P.L. and focuses her practice on commercial litigation disputes in both state and federal court.

DBR: Lawyers See Boom in Construction Practice

A total of $723 million in contracts for future commercial and residential construction were awarded in South Florida in June, up 101 percent from $360 million in the same month a year before, according to Dodge Research Analytics.  Kluger Kaplan founding member Alan Kluger spoke to John Pacenti of the Daily Business Review about what this construction boom means for litigation.

“It’s what I call good-economy construction litigation, meaning that things are being built and they are selling,” said Kluger.  “We are in a boom. There is no doubt about it.”

View the entire article here.

Litigation Landscape Changes as South Florida’s Economy Rebounds

Industry insiders may be tempted to think litigation is in recession now that South Florida’s economy is on the rebound but as Alan Kluger states in the Daily Business Review, that couldn’t be further from the truth. In this new economic cycle, he’s seeing less litigation between business partners fighting for leftover scraps from failed business ventures and more disputes among partners and joint venturers fighting over the fruits of the bounty of success.

He points out that many real estate projects that were previously faltering are now flourishing. So parties that were trying to restructure deal terms to mitigate their losses now want to restore the original deal terms to reap the benefits of the rebound economy.

Continue reading

Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine Partners Named “Super Lawyers” 2014

 A dozen of our attorneys have been selected as top legal practitioners by Super Lawyers. Outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas, who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement, are named Super Lawyers each year. Kluger Kaplan was also ranked in the “Top 100” law firms in Florida.  The selection process is competitive and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Kudos to the following attorneys:

Rising Stars                                                 Super Lawyers

– Jeffrey Berman                                            – Deborah Chames
Casey Cusick                                              – Abbey Kaplan
– Jorge Delgado                                             – Bruce Katzen
– Lisa Jerles                                                   – Alan Kluger
Justin Kaplan                                               – Todd Levine
– Richard Segal                                              – Steve Silverman

 

Think You Waived the Right to Jury Trial in Your Initial Pleading? Maybe Not.

By: Justin B. Kaplan

Young litigators are routinely taught that if the plaintiff does not demand a jury trial in its complaint (or counterclaim), it permanently waived this important right.  This time-worn lesson is not necessarily correct, however.  There is still hope.

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide:

“Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other party a demand therefore in writing at any time after commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue.”

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.430(b).  However:  The Judge “may allow an amendment in the proceedings to demand a trial by jury or order a trial by jury on its own motion”  Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.430(d).  All may not be lost.  Continue reading