Source: https://www.colodnyfass.com/blog/colodny-fass-maria-elena-abate-examines-the-daubert-standard-on-scientific-evidence-and-expert-opinion-testimony/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:47:41+00:00

Document:
As of July 1, 2013, Florida courts will employ the Daubert Standard from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) in determining whether to admit scientific evidence and expert opinion testimony during litigation.
For nearly 90 years prior to the new law, Florida courts employed the standard articulated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) to determine whether to admit expert testimony. Under the Frye standard, the methodology or principle on which expert opinion testimony is based must be generally accepted in the field in which it belongs.
Under the Daubert test, when there is a proffer of expert testimony, the judge as a gatekeeper must make a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the underlying facts at issue.
In its preamble, the bill further states that the Florida Legislature intends to adopt the standards provided in Daubert , as well as those from General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), and to prohibit pure opinion testimony as provided in Marsh v. Valyou, 997 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2007).
HB 7015 also amends s. 90.704, F.S. to prohibit the disclosure of inadmissible facts or data to a jury by the proponent of an expert opinion or by inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury’s evaluation of the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. As a result of the amendments, the effect of s. 90.704, F.S. is conformed to the effect of Federal Rule of Evidence 703.
As stated in the bill’s preamble, the Daubert standard will not be limited to only “scientific” experts. See Kuhmo Tires Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). More importantly, pure opinion testimony will no longer be admissible unless it satisfies the Daubert test.
Under Daubert, scientific expert testimony will likely be scrutinized to a greater degree, which, in turn, will exclude unreliable and unsupported expert testimony. Thus, the switch to the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony will play a significant role in cases highly dependent on the testimony of expert witnesses, such as sinkhole litigation, construction disputes and medical malpractice claims. However, it may also be applied to expert testimony regarding general matters such as errors and omissions, claims handling, the calculation of damages, repair or replacement costs, the severity of injuries, and delay.
During legislative debate on the bill in 2013, some state attorneys testified that changing from Frye to Daubert is expected to increase the number of pre-trial evidentiary hearings needed as litigants test the new Standard’s limits, thus adding to the already significant backlog in Florida’s court system. Prosecutors predicted an increase in workload, saying the adoption of Daubert will become a “trial within a trial,” requiring a much larger use of expert witnesses and court hearing time. Others worried that Daubert would would ask judges to make scientific determinations they are not qualified to make, or lead to inconsistent rulings on the admissibility of evidence. Almost certainly, the change is expected necessitate an increase in judicial education, inasmuch as judges will be required to become more familiar with pertinent scientific principles.
While Florida’s court system will have to adapt to the new playing field, the Daubert standard has applied to all Florida federal decisions since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in 1993. Throughout the years, insurers have carefully monitored Daubert and its legal applications because of resulting inconsistencies that could adversely affect expert witness and scientific evidence standards by which claims professionals, underwriters and the insurance industry as a whole are judged. Plaintiffs’ counsel who do not regularly litigate in federal court may see themselves at a disadvantage.
The new law does not appear to be retroactive in its application. The new standard will apply to all cases tried on or after July 1, 2013, even if the case was filed prior to the enactment date.
In Florida’s courts, HB 7015’s Daubert’s full effects will not be known for some time to come.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.