FDLA Amicus Briefs
In Morris v. Muniz, SC16-931, Travase Erickson of Saalfield Shad P.A. authored a brief in support of the medical providers. The case concerns discovery of an expert's qualifications during the presuit investigation period in medical malpractice claims. Essentially, the Plaintiff argued that the medical providers have to accept the affidavit wholesale and can't inquire further.
Briefing was completed in November 2017; the court dispensed with oral argument.
In Delisle v. Crane, SC16-2182, Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, PA and Melinda Merced of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. authored a brief in support of respondents arguing that the Florida Supreme Court should treat the Florida Legislation's adoption of the Daubert standard for expert witness testimony as substantive. The case was argued on March 6, 2018.
In Odom v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., SC17-563, Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, PA and Elaine Walter of Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo filed a brief in support of the respondent tobacco company. In addition to arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because there was no express and direct conflict between the decision below and any other appellate decision, the brief argued that the Fourth District Court of Appeal acted properly in reversing a trial court's denial of remittitur and remanding for remittitur or a new trial. The case was argued on June 6, 2018.
In Gal v. Prepared Ins. Co., SC16-2190, Elaine Walter of Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli & DiMatteo and Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, PA authored a brief in support of the insurance company. This case was a first party property case about when a general contractor is necessary and when a carrier must pay the general contractor's profit and overhead. The homeowner advocated for a three-trades rule and implicitly argued that the Court should recede from Trinidad v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., which adopted a "reasonably likely" standard for determining when the cost of a general contractor should be included in replacement-cost insurance. After briefing was concluded the court determined that jurisdiction had been improvidently granted, and dismissed review.