Case ID: so2d_924/html/0068-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosa Maria ESCOTO, etc., Appellant, v. Karl DREHOBL, M.D., et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D04-1520.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 22, 2006.
    Rehearing Denied March 29, 2006.
    Fenster & Faerber and Jesse Faerber (Plantation); Podhurst Orseck and Joel D. Eaton, Miami, for appellant.
    Dittmar & Hauser and Helen Hauser, Coconut Grove; Restani, McAllister & Cassetty and Lucie M. McAllister, Miami; Coel & Warren; Hicks & Kneale and Dinah Stein, Miami; Conroy, Simberg, Ga-non, Krevans & Abel and Hinda Klein (Hollywood), for appellee.
    Before GERSTEN, RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pascual v. Dozier, 771 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981)(trial court’s decision to exclude expert testimony based on improper disclosure “should be guided largely by a determination as to whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting party ... Prejudice in this sense refers to the surprise in fact of the objecting party ... .”)(internal citations omitted); Dos Santos v. Carlson, 806 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(reversing and remanding for new trial based on improper exclusion of defendant’s radiology expert, where plaintiff knew about expert prior to trial and failed to establish unfair surprise).