Automated Summary
Key Facts
Dorothy Wynn tripped in a Wal-Mart parking lot in 2015, claiming sprained ankle and nerve damage. Wal-Mart disputed the nerve damage's causation. Dr. Thomas Odmark, Wal-Mart's expert, initially testified in March 2022 that Wynn's nerve damage was unrelated to the fall but later, after reviewing medical records produced by Wynn on September 26, 2022 (the last day of discovery), opined it could be linked to her preexisting back injury. The trial court excluded the new opinion as untimely under the case management order requiring disclosure of expert opinion changes 60 days before the pretrial conference (September 27, 2022). The jury awarded Wynn $1,000,000 in damages, later reduced to $900,825.81. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, certifying conflict with Callari and Dos Santos cases on Binger v. King Pest Control's application to expert opinion disclosures.
Issues
- The court considers if Wal-Mart's failure to disclose Dr. Odmark's revised opinion (based on late-produced medical records) constituted a violation of the case management order, and whether the trial court's strict enforcement of disclosure deadlines without a prejudice analysis was proper under the 2025 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure amendments. The analysis includes whether the new rules (Rule 1.200(e)(1) and 1.380(d)) negate Binger's prejudice requirement and permit automatic exclusion for noncompliance.
- This case addresses whether the trial court erred in excluding Wal-Mart's expert witness Dr. Odmark's opinion that Wynn's nerve damage could be related to her preexisting back condition, which was not timely disclosed under the case management order. The court must determine if Binger v. King Pest Control (401 So. 2d 1310) requires a trial court to find prejudice to the opposing party before excluding such an opinion, and whether the belated production of medical records by Wynn justified the exclusion. The decision also certifies a conflict with Callari and Dos Santos, which held that Binger mandates a prejudice analysis for late-disclosed expert opinions.
- The court examines whether the parties' stipulation that Dr. Odmark's second deposition was for trial use obligated Wynn to object during the deposition to his revised opinion, and whether her failure to do so waived the objection. It also evaluates if the trial court's finding of 'prejudice' (surprise) and 'disruption' of the trial's orderly progress was supported by the record, given Wynn had two experts to counter Dr. Odmark's testimony.
Holdings
- The court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude Dr. Odmark's revised expert opinion because Wal-Mart failed to disclose it by the deadline set in the case management order. The court held that under Crecelius, trial courts may strictly enforce disclosure deadlines without requiring a prejudice analysis for late-disclosed expert opinions, even if the change in opinion was due to newly produced evidence.
- The court certified this decision as in direct conflict with Callari v. Winkeljohn and Dos Santos v. Carlson, which required trial courts to apply Binger's prejudice analysis before excluding late-disclosed expert opinions. The majority rejected Binger in favor of the stricter enforcement standard from Crecelius.
Remedies
The jury awarded Dorothy Wynn $1,000,000 in damages, which was later reduced to $900,825.81 in the final judgment due to agreed-upon setoffs. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, upholding the trial court's exclusion of Wal-Mart's expert opinion. No additional remedies were granted beyond the monetary award.
Monetary Damages
1000000.00
Legal Principles
The court applied the new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200 (effective January 1, 2025), which mandates strict enforcement of case management order deadlines for expert witness disclosures. This rule supersedes the Binger v. King Pest Control (1981) standard, which previously required trial courts to assess prejudice to the opposing party before excluding late-disclosed expert testimony. The trial court excluded Wal-Mart's expert opinion because it was not disclosed by the deadline, emphasizing strict compliance over prejudice analysis under the revised rule.
Precedent Name
- Gurin Gold, LLC v. Dixon
- Belmont v. North Broward Hospital District
- Dos Santos v. Carlson
- Lugo v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
- Binger v. King Pest Control
- Myron v. South Broward Hospital District
- Callari v. Winkeljohn
- Crecelius v. Rizzitano
Cited Statute
- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380
- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200
Judge Name
- Wozniak, J.
- Smith, J.
- Mize, J.
Passage Text
- Contrary to our sister courts' decisions expanding Binger beyond its holding, where a party fails to disclose an opinion of its expert witness by the deadline set forth in the applicable case management order, the trial court is permitted to strictly enforce the case management order and exclude the undisclosed opinion, without considering whether the other party would be prejudiced by the introduction of the undisclosed opinion.
- In Crecelius, I expressed in my concurring opinion my disagreement with the majority's rejection of the Binger standard... changing the Binger standard for the remaining cases in the appellate pipeline 'creates unnecessary confusion in the law.'
- The trial judge found that Dr. Odmark's opinion was a 'very different opinion' than Dr. Odmark had given in his first deposition, that the new opinion was not disclosed by the deadline set forth in the case management order, that Wynn would be prejudiced by the introduction of the new opinion, and that there was no time to cure the prejudice.