Case ID: so2d_699/html/0755-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. POLEN, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph PLEMONDON, his Wife, Debbie Plemondon, and their minor dependent children, Hope Danielle Plemondon, and Laura Plemondon, Appellants, v. Alberto FERNANDEZ, M.D.; Carlos Vidalon, M.D.; Fernandez and Associates, P.A.; Philip Gordon, M.D.; and Steven Dolberg, D.C., Appellees.
    No. 95-4143.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Aug. 27, 1997.
    Rehearing and Certification Denied Oct. 13, 1997.
    Richard A. Barnett of Richard A. Barnett, P.A., Hollywood, for appellants.
    Esther E. Galicia of George, Hartz, Lun-deen, Flagg & Fulmer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Alberto Fernandez, M.D., Carlos Vidalon, M.D., and Fernandez and Associates, P.A.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Wainscott v. Rindley, 610 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

STONE, C.J., and SHAHOOD, J., concur.

POLEN, J., dissents with opinion.

POLEN, Judge,

dissenting.

I would reverse for a new trial solely on the issue of whether it was error to exclude from evidence the purported March 17, 1991 letter of Dr. Gordon. There was clearly a dispute as to the authenticity of the letter; however, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of its authenticity under 90.901. I believe sections 90.953 and 90.954, Florida Statutes (1995) would allow for its admission, to allow the jury to determine whether Dr. Gordon had signed the letter and, if so, how much weight to give it. The erroneous exclusion of this letter would certainly be harmful, as even the defense lawyer described it as “damaging.”