Recent Posts
- Thought-provoking article re meaning of legal conservatismThe Danger of Trump’s Clash with the Conservative Legal MovementArticle Source FOR…
- Interesting liberal piece mentioning Federalist Society role in Federal judicial pipelineSource: The smartest people in Trumpland – ThinkProgress All of this drama…
- Scalia’s greatest strength, his steadfastness, was also his greatest weakness – The Washington PostI do not agree that his steadfastness as described in the article…
Florida Practice Areas
- Appellate Law
- Charter School Law
- Procurements & Bid Protests
- Professional & Occupational Licensing & Discipline
- Constitutional Law
- Education Law
- School Choice Law
- Business and Civil Litigation
- General Counsel Services
- Election and Campaign Law
- Ethics, Public Records, and Government in the Sunshine Law
- Other Practice Areas
Legal Disclaimer
Interesting 1st DCA case – presuit notice requirements: most interesting part is discussion of internet citation
Today the First DCA issued an opinion in Oken v. Williams, 1D08-3398, granting a petition for cert in case that argued that the trial court had failed to follow the law when denying a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with presuit notice in a medical malpractice action. Basically, the plaintiff was attempting to bring a action against a board certified cardiologist, but had a corroborating affidavit signed by a doctor who was board certified in family and emergency medicine. The motion to dismiss alleged that he was not a qualified expert. The trial court however found that the areas he was certified in covered the areas of evaluating heart conditions and he was qualified therefore to do an affidavit. The court found this in error, and basically said that you would have to be a cardiologist to be an expert. The opinion then detoured off into the questions of whether citation to internet sources was appropriate, since the majority cited to internet sources to demonstrate what his not cardiology certifications did not qualify him as a cardiology expert- a generalist was not qualified to opine as to a specialist.
Appears the majority is correct on the standard for a presuit expert, but the interesting question is whether the record below, without resort to internet explanation of the meaning of specific board certifications, was sufficient to determine he was not qualified as an expert in cardiology. Anyone with a med background or similar exposure could easily have reached that conclusion- generalist and specialist board certifications are different, but should a trial judge have understood that? The majority said their result did not depend on internet citation and with basic background med knowledge, that is certainly true. The dissent though doubted that the factual record was sufficient to make the determination without understanding the meaning of board certification, and raises the issue of when it is proper to cite to the internet, and what sources on the internet, if not part of the record below. The opinion has a wealth of cites to other Florida appellate cases in which citations to the internet have been done, and it is an interesting discussion that will be more and more relevant in this electronic age.
Blog Archive
- June 2025 (1)
- August 2017 (1)
- February 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (1)
- December 2014 (1)
- May 2012 (1)
- September 2011 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (3)
- December 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (2)
- September 2010 (3)
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (1)
- May 2010 (3)
- March 2010 (2)
- December 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (3)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (12)
- August 2009 (1)

