Case Name: Tina M. TETRAULT and Arthur T. Tetrault, Appellants, v. James A. FAIRCHILD, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-07-24
Citations: 799 So. 2d 226
Docket Number: Nos. 5D00-1336, 5D00-1641
Parties: Tina M. TETRAULT and Arthur T. Tetrault, Appellants, v. James A. FAIRCHILD, Appellee.
Judges: GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 799
Pages: 226–242

Head Matter:
Tina M. TETRAULT and Arthur T. Tetrault, Appellants, v. James A. FAIRCHILD, Appellee.
Nos. 5D00-1336, 5D00-1641.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 24, 2001.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 2001.
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder, of Law Office of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Theresa K. Clark, of Law Office of Patricia E. Garagozlo, Melbourne, for Appellants.
James I. Knudson and Jerry D. McGreal of Knudson & McGreal, P.A., Rockledge, and Edna L. Caruso, of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tina Tetrault, while driving a vehicle owned by herself and her husband, collided with a vehicle driven by James Fair-child, causing him injury. Fairchild sued and prevailed. We reverse.
Dr. Gordon was the radiologist assigned to the emergency room that received the plaintiff on November 13, 1996. While being evaluated in the emergency room, x-rays were ordered and these were examined on the day of the accident by Dr. Gordon, who wrote a report opining that these x-rays reflected no visible injury. That was the extent of his involvement with the plaintiff. Plaintiff was given Dar-vaset and Valium for pain in the emergency room and released.
Plaintiff subsequently began treatment with Dr. Seconi, a chiropractor. Dr. Seco-ni referred the plaintiff to Dr. Prusinski, a neurologist, who performed a 1996 MRI and whose report reflected only "bulging discs." The plaintiff continued treatment with Dr. Seconi through the end of 1997. In October 1999, the plaintiff began to experience increased pain and began to treat with an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Hanna. Dr. Hanna ordered a new MRI, which was performed in October 1999. The radiologist, Dr. Shapiro, found "No significant interval change" since the 1996 MRI and diagnosed a "bulging disc with a tear in the posterior annular fibers."
Approximately three months before the second MRI was taken, the trial court entered its order setting various trial preparation cut-off dates and scheduling the trial for January 24, 2000. Disclosure of expert witnesses was required by October 15, 1999, and discovery was to be completed by January 10. The defendant took an up-dated deposition of the plaintiff on November 29 and, at that time, learned of the plaintiffs recent and on-going treatment with Dr. Hanna and Dr. Shapiro. Previously, on September 21, 1999, the plaintiff responded to expert interrogatories identifying the various physicians and experts expected to testify. Rather than answer the interrogatories as posed, the restated answers created aggregate responses. The only one appearing to apply remotely to Dr. Gordon is the following:
Doctors shall testify to their care and treatment of Plaintiff. Dr. Prusinski, Dr. Seconi, and Dr. Fornus will also testify that plaintiff has sustained a permanent impairment as a result of the injuries sustained in the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. They shall also testify as to the causation of the injuries for which they treated plaintiff. Further, they will testify as to diagnosis, prognosis and necessity for further follow-up care. [Emphasis supplied.]
The defendant appeals the court's refusal to allow the defense a continuance in order to obtain a neuroradiologist to evaluate the 1996 and 1999 MRIs and critique the opinions of the current treating physicians concerning the plaintiffs condition.
The testimony of Dr. Gordon was critical to plaintiffs case. Shortly before the trial, Dr. Gordon was contacted by plaintiffs counsel, was given the 1996 and 1999 MRIs and was asked to give an opinion concerning the injury they depicted. From the date of the plaintiffs accident until trial, Dr. Gordon was indicated as nothing more than the post-accident emergency room x-ray-reading radiologist who had written a report reporting no injury. Nothing in the answers to expert interrogatories and nothing learned by the defendant through the taking of the plaintiffs deposition could have reasonably put the defense on notice that Dr. Gordon would be called to testify as an expert radiologist to give his evaluation of the two subsequent MRIs and render opinions based on them that the plaintiff had suffered a herniated disc caused by the accident.
The plaintiff urges that the reference in the answer to expert interrogatories that Dr. Gordon would testify as to "causation" was sufficient because "certainly causation encompasses interpreting the MRIs." It is disappointing to see counsel make such an argument. The only other argument to be made is that the expert testimony of Dr. Gordon was harmless because it was "merely cumulative" to Dr. Shapiro's report. While the erroneous omission of cumulative evidence can be harmless, "harmless error" is a more difficult case to make when the testimony is not that of a fact witness, but instead is expert testimony. Dr. Gordon was called by the plaintiff not to testify to his "care and treatment" of plaintiff but to render an opinion as a neuroradiologist based upon his review of MRIs supplied to him in plaintiffs counsel's office as to whether MRIs showed a herniated disc. It was reversible error to allow Dr. Gordon to offer expert testimony based on the October 1996 and October 1999 MRIs. See Suarez-Burgos v. Morhaim, 745 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA1999), rev. denied, 767 So.2d 461 (Fla.2000).
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
SAWAYA, J., dissents, with opinion.