fbpx

Case Search

Please select a category.

MEDICAL EVALUATION CENTERS, INC., a Florida Corporation (As Assignee of Debbie Todd), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Defendant.

10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 438d

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Expert witness fees — Treating physician is not entitled to expert witness fee for deposition testimony

MEDICAL EVALUATION CENTERS, INC., a Florida Corporation (As Assignee of Debbie Todd), Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 01-27576-CC-I. April 24, 2003. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: C. Todd Smith. Lisa S. Del Vecchio.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

This Cause having come before the Court on Plaintiff, Medical Evaluation Centers, Inc., Objection to Defendant’s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum and Motion for Protective Order, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and otherwise being fully advised in these premises, finds as follows:

1. Plaintiff has sued Defendant alleging that Defendant has failed to pay certain personal injury protection benefits in accordance with the applicable insurance policy and the Florida No-Fault Statute.

2. Dr. Friedlander is an employee of Medical Evaluation Centers, Inc., and acted as the treating physician with respect to the insured. The Plaintiff is requesting pursuant to their Motion an expert witness fee pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390 for Dr. Friedlander’s deposition.

3. This Court hearing the argument of counsel is following the reasoning in the following cases: Ryder Truck v. Perez, 715 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Frantz v. Golebiewski, 407 So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and Kurdian v. State Farm Automobile Insurance, 7Florida Law Weekly Supp. 694a (June 29, 2000) and Bystrom v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance, 566 So.2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

4. Therefore, Dr. Friedlander’s role in this case is that of a fact witness, not an expert witness and therefore, he is not entitled to payment of an expert witness fee for his deposition.

* * *

Skip to content