Office of Attorney General Pam Bondi
Appellate Alert
__________________________________________________________________
Date issued: 12/16/2014
Editor: Betsy Stupski
Clicking the icon following the number of each case cited below will link you directly to the cited opinion. In addition, full texts of recent slip opinions are available by clicking "VIEW" at the top of your screen, then "SLIP OPINIONS." AGOs are available in the separate AGO database.
Appellate Alert 2014-15
December 16, 2014
United States Supreme Court
October 8, 2014
Comments made during jury deliberations were not admissible in request for new trial even though juror had failed to disclose pertinent information during voir dire.
The Plaintiff in this case sued after receiving catastrophic injuries in an automobile accident. The jury found for the Defendant. Issues for appeal arose when the Plaintiff’s counsel discovered that the jury foreperson, during deliberations, disclosed an event that she failed to disclose during voir dire. During deliberations she reported that her daughter had caused a fatal car accident which could have ruined her life. Another juror revealed and signed an affidavit reporting that these comments had taken place. Plaintiff moved for a new trial but was denied. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit, finding that the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 606(b) which bars evidence about any statement made during the jury’s deliberations, precluded the use of the juror’s affidavit regarding comments made by another juror. The Court went on to say that the comments did not fall into any of the exceptions to Rule 606(b).
13-517
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Chapman v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing LLC 12-14502
9/11/14
The Eleventh Circuit provided a thorough analysis of Plaintiff’s expert testimony using Daubert principles.
Plaintiff sued Proctor & Gamble in a products liability action involving the use of denture cream. She claimed that a zinc compound in the cream caused her to develop a neurological disorder. Plaintiff presented a number of expert witnesses to prove that the denture cream had caused her disorder. The issues in the case centered on the Daubert analysis of that testimony. The district court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
The Plaintiff appealed, claiming that the district court had erred in its analysis of the expert testimony. In its analysis, the Eleventh Circuit noted that substances can fall into two categories – those medically accepted as toxic such as asbestos and those that have not been generally proven to be toxic. The Court said that the zinc compound fell into the second category and; therefore, Plaintiffs were required to prove both general and specific causation. In proving causation experts are expected to show reliable methodologies in reaching their conclusions. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court in finding that the experts in this case lacked sufficient methodologies.
12-14502
Second District Court of Appeal
Marchman v. St. Anthony’s Hospital, Inc. 2D13-3827
12/12/14
The Florida Commission on Human Relations did not have jurisdiction over hospital.
Marchman, a deaf patient, was admitted to St. Anthony’s Hospital with heart problems but the hospital did not provide an interpreter. Later Marchman brought a complaint before the Florida Commission on Human Relations. He argued that the hospital had discriminated against him based on a physical disability. The Commission found that it did not have jurisdiction over hospitals. The Plaintiff in turn argued that hospitals were covered because they had coffee shops and cafeterias.
The Second District affirmed the Commission, noting that the Florida Statutes specifically exclude eating places maintained by facilities certified or licensed and regulated by the Agency for Health Care Administration.
2D13-3827
Fourth District Court of Appeal
Board of County Commissioners v. Parrish 4D14-101
12/10/14
The statutory scheme giving DOR approval authority demonstrated Legislature’s intent to limit Board of County Commissioners’ control over property appraiser’s budget.
Property Appraiser and Board of County Commissioners were in a dispute over the property appraiser’s budget. The Board argued that they had authority to control the property appraiser’s budget while the property appraiser argued a strict adherence to the statutory budget review process laid out for her budget in the Florida Statutes. The Florida Statutes require that Department of Revenue to approve budgets for property appraisers. During a meeting the Board reduced the amount approved by the Department of Revenue. The property appraiser filed an action for mandamus to compel the Board to fund the rest of her requested budget approved by DOR. The Court found in favor of the property appraiser. The Court said, “These considerations underscore why condoning the Board’s course of action in this case would not only be contrary to the Legislature’s intent but problematic in practice. Under section 195.087’s budget review system, the board of county commissioners assumes the role of advocate rather than decision-maker. As articulated by the Attorney General in 1997 when discussing section 197.087(2), which applies to an analogous review for tax collectors, while section 195.087 ‘requires that a copy of the budget be furnished to the board of county commissioners, it does not provide for, or otherwise require, approval by the county commission.’ Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 97-02 (1997) (emphasis added). Rather, ‘it is the [FDOR] that is charged under the statute with determining whether the budget is adequate.’”
4D14-101
Fifth District Court of Appeal
Orange County , Florida v. Hewlings 5D13-377512/12/14
Courts expect lawyers to thoroughly research and address all issues.
County was subject to sanctions for filing frivolous appeal.
A “PCA decision does not have precedential value but a “per curiam” decision does.
The underlying case in this appeal was a public records case where the court found that the County had unreasonably delayed responding to a public records request. Ultimately the Court found that the requestor was not only entitled to the requested records but also her attorney fees related to her action for mandamus and subsequent appeal. The County filed a second appeal. In this second appeal the Court began with a discussion clarifying the difference between a PCA decision and a “per curiam” decision . A PCA opinion does not have precedential value but a “ per curiam “ opinion does. The Court also discussed the need to conduct careful research. The Court went on to find that the Appellant did not raise any new issues , therefore, was subject to sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.
5D13-3775