Younkin v. Blackwelder

Younkin v. Blackwelder

Opinion

 [*687]  PER CURIAM.

We accepted review of the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Younkin v. Blackwelder, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D549 (Fla. Feb. 22, 2019), in which the district court, in an automobile negligence case, passed upon a question that it certified to be of great public importance regarding whether this Court's decision in Worley v. Central Florida Young Men's Christian Ass'n, 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017), forecloses discovery of the financial relationship, if any, between a personal-injury defendant's nonparty law firm and the defendant's expert witnesses. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

After the plaintiff requested certain information regarding the financial relationship between the defendant's law firm and the defense's medical expert, the defendant moved for a protective order, but the trial court denied the motion. Younkin, 44 Fla. L. Weekly at D549, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612 at *2. The defendant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Fifth District. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the trial court's order was consistent with the Fifth District's earlier decision in Vazquez v. Martinez, 175 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Younkin, 44 Fla. L. Weekly at D549-D550, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612 at *3. In Vazquez, the Fifth District held that "discovery of the doctor/law firm relationship or doctor/insurer relationship is allowed." [**3]  175 So. 3d at 374. Here, the Fifth District concluded that Worley, which held that the attorney-client privilege protects a plaintiff and the plaintiff's nonparty law firm from having to disclose certain information involving the plaintiff's treating physicians, "did not implicitly overrule Vazquez or other similar cases." Younkin, 44 Fla. L. Weekly at D550, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 2612 at *3. Nevertheless, because the Fifth District was concerned "that the law in this area is not being applied in an even-handed manner to all litigants," the Fifth District certified a question regarding whether Worley should be applied to the discoverability of the financial information at issue. Id.

 [*688]  In Dodgen v. Grijalva, No. SC19-1118, 331 So. 3d 679, 2021 Fla. LEXIS 1657 (Fla. Oct. 14, 2021), we have addressed a similar certified question from the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a case involving certiorari review by the district court of a discovery order that had ordered the defendant to produce certain information regarding the financial relationship, if any, between the defendant's nonparty insurer and the defense's expert witnesses. The Fourth District denied the defendant's petition. Dodgen, 2021 Fla. LEXIS 1657, *13. However, after expressing concerns similar to those raised by the Fifth District here, the Fourth District certified a question involving whether [**4]  Worley should be applied to preclude discovery of the financial relationship at issue. Id. at 1-2, 7. We reframed the certified question, id. at 2, distinguished Worley, and concluded that, because the trial court's discovery order was consistent with established law, the discovery order did not depart from the essential requirements of the law. See id. at 10-14. We thus approved the result reached by the Fourth District. Id. at 15.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.