44 Fla. L. Weekly D785a
Insurance — Discovery — Experts — Financial relationships — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law in compelling defendant to disclose documents concerning financial arrangements between defendant’s attorney, insurance company, and retained expert witness — Question certified: Whether the analysis and decision in Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017), should also apply to preclude a defense firm that is not a party to the litigation from having to disclose its financial relationship with experts that it retains for purposes of litigation including those that perform comprehensive medical examinations under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360?
ODAYWARD DHANRAJ, Petitioner, v. ARELIS GARCIA, Respondent. 5th District. Case No. 5D18-2330. March 22, 2019. Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Bob Leblanc, Judge. Counsel: Kansas R. Gooden, of Boyd & Jenerette, PA, Jacksonville, for Petitioner. Tracy S. Carlin, of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, and Andrew Parker Felix, of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent.
(HARRIS, J.) In this first-tier certiorari proceeding, Petitioner, Odayward Dhanraj, asks this Court to quash the trial court’s discovery order compelling him to provide documents concerning the financial arrangements between his attorney, his insurance company, and his retained expert witness. Because there has been no departure from the essential requirements of law, we deny Petitioner’s request. We recently addressed this identical issue. See Younkin v. Blackwelder, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D549 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 22, 2019) (acknowledging that discovery of the type of financial information in this case is permissible “to assist counsel in impeaching examining physicians and other experts by demonstrating that the expert has economic ties to the insurance company or defense law firm” (quoting Vazquez v. Martinez, 175 So. 3d 372, (Fla. 5th DCA 2015))).
However, as in Younkin, because Petitioner raised a compelling argument that the law in this area is not being applied in an even-handed manner to all litigants, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
WHETHER THE ANALYSIS AND DECISION IN WORLEY v. CENTRAL FLORIDA YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASS’N, 228 SO. 3D 18 (FLA. 2017), SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO PRECLUDE A DEFENSE LAW FIRM THAT IS NOT A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION FROM HAVING TO DISCLOSE ITS FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH EXPERTS THAT IT RETAINS FOR PURPOSES OF LITIGATION INCLUDING THOSE THAT PERFORM COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.360?
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DENIED; QUESTION CERTIFIED. (EVANDER, C.J. and ORFINGER, J., concur.)
