03-0042 TEMPLER V. FRANKEL

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 03-0042 TEMPLER V. FRANKEL

Case Date: 05/26/2004

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 RITA TEMPLER and PAUL TEMPLER,** Appellants, vs. ** ** CASE NO. 3D03-42 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 01-6434

N. RALPH FRANKEL, M.D. and ** TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, d/b/a TENET PHYSICIANS ** SERVICES, a foreign corporation, ** Appellees. **

Opinion filed May 26, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge. Ratzan & Alters; Angelo, Barry & Boldt and Kimberly L. Boldt, for appellants. Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford and Shelley H. Leinicke for appellee, N. Ralph Frankel, M.D.; Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Cortina and Gail Leverett Parenti, for appellee, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Tenet Physicians Services. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., SHEVIN and WELLS, JJ. SHEVIN, Judge. We affirm the final judgment. We hold that the court did

not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered documents.

The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So. 2d 572

The plaintiffs' expert testified as to the the standard

same matter the documents would have illustrated:

of care the defendant-physician should have exercised, and how the patient's care should have been coordinated. exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the

See Parker v. State,

29 Fla. L. Weekly S27 (Fla. Jan. 22, 2004)(exclusion of letters to attorney not abuse of discretion where attorney testified to same facts contained in letters). We also hold that the trial

court did not err in limiting the scope of the expert's testimony. Castillo v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 854 So.

2d 1264 (Fla. 2003). Affirmed.

-2-

Download 03-0042 TEMPLER V. FRANKEL.pdf