Lexplug logoLexplug

Perez v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida
2014 WL 1613654, 138 So.3d 492, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5875 (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Daubert standard, expert testimony is inadmissible if it is based on the expert's subjective belief or unsupported speculation rather than on principles and methods derived from the scientific method.


Facts:

  • Maria Franco Perez worked as a call center operator for Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. during her pregnancy.
  • Perez's physician, Dr. Isidro Cardella, classified her pregnancy as "high risk" due to pre-existing conditions including obesity and prior surgeries.
  • After Perez reported workplace stress, Dr. Cardella provided a note for her employer recommending a maximum 40-hour work week and frequent bathroom breaks.
  • Perez alleged that Bell South failed to accommodate the doctor's recommendations.
  • On August 11, 2004, Bell South terminated Perez's employment for non-performance.
  • Two days later, Perez suffered a placental abruption, leading to the premature birth of her son, Osmany Anthony Perez.
  • Dr. Cardella opined that workplace stress, exacerbated by Bell South's actions, caused the placental abruption.
  • During his deposition, Dr. Cardella admitted his opinion was personal, was not supported by any scientific studies or medical literature, and was based on an analogy to stress causing cardiac arrest and a comparison to Perez's subsequent, less complicated pregnancy while she was not working.

Procedural Posture:

  • Osmany Anthony Perez, by and through his mother Maria Franco Perez, sued Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. in a Florida trial court for negligence.
  • Bell South moved to strike the expert causation testimony of Perez's physician, Dr. Cardella.
  • The trial court granted the motion to strike, ruling the testimony inadmissible under the Frye standard.
  • Following the exclusion of the expert testimony, Bell South moved for summary judgment.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bell South, leading to the dismissal of the case.
  • Perez, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, which is an intermediate appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an expert medical opinion admissible to establish causation when it is based on the expert's personal belief and a temporal relationship, but is not supported by any scientific studies, medical literature, or general acceptance in the relevant scientific community?


Opinions:

Majority - Shepherd, C.J.

No. Expert medical opinion is inadmissible when it is based on subjective belief and unsupported speculation rather than reliable scientific methodology. Applying the Daubert standard, which Florida adopted to replace the Frye standard, the court holds that expert testimony must be grounded in 'scientific knowledge' derived from the scientific method. This requires more than an expert's personal opinion; it demands that the theory be testable, subjected to peer review, have a known error rate, and enjoy general acceptance. Dr. Cardella's testimony fails this test because he explicitly admitted it was his personal opinion, unsupported by any studies, literature, or professional consensus. His reasoning, based merely on the temporal sequence of events (stress followed by abruption), constitutes the logical fallacy of 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' and is therefore inadmissible as it is not derived from reliable scientific principles.



Analysis:

This case solidifies Florida's transition from the Frye "general acceptance" standard to the more rigorous Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert testimony. The court's retroactive application of the new statute and its explicit rejection of "pure opinion" testimony signals a significant tightening of evidentiary rules. This decision raises the bar for plaintiffs in cases relying on expert testimony, such as medical malpractice or toxic torts, requiring them to demonstrate that their expert's conclusions are based on methodologically sound science, not just experience or belief. It effectively strengthens the trial court's role as a 'gatekeeper' to prevent juries from hearing speculative or unreliable scientific claims.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Perez v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc. (2014) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Perez v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc.