Case Name: Gary MASSEY, Appellant, v. Calvin F. DAVID, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-04-03
Citations: 979 So. 2d 931
Docket Number: No. SC07-776
Parties: Gary MASSEY, Appellant, v. Calvin F. DAVID, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 979
Pages: 931–952

Head Matter:
Gary MASSEY, Appellant, v. Calvin F. DAVID, Appellee.
No. SC07-776.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 3, 2008.
Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, Florida, and Robert C. Widman, Venice, Florida, for Appellant.
John A. DeVault, III and Courtney K. Grimm of Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pil-lans, and Coxe, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida, and John H. Pelzer of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellee.

Opinion:
LEWIS, C.J.
This case is before the Court on appeal from a decision of the First District Court of Appeal, Massey v. David, 953 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (Massey II), which declared a state statute to be invalid. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant Massey entered into a contract with Appellee, attorney David, in connection with injuries allegedly suffered by Massey due to his exposure to chemicals released by companies previously known as Koppers Company and Cabot Carbon Corporation, and which are now collectively known as Beazer East, Inc. (hereinafter "the Company"). See Massey v. David, 831 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (Massey I); Massey v. Beazer East, Inc., 712 So.2d 1265, 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The contract between David and Massey specifically provided:
In the event a dispute arises . the Client and Lawyer shall not make arbitrary decisions, but shall make decisions based on all facts reasonably available. In the event any dispute cannot be resolved between Lawyer and Client, the dispute will be resolved by Russell Peav-yhouse after joint consultation with the Client and the Lawyer and Russell Peavyhouse's decision as an arbitrator will be binding on both the Client and the Lawyer. This provision includes all manner of things that could be in dispute, including but not limited to, pleadings, discovery, settlement, trial tactics and all other things related to the representation of the Client by the Lawyer.
Massey I, 831 So.2d at 229 (emphasis supplied). When a disagreement arose between Massey and David with regard to a possible settlement with the Company, David submitted the dispute to the arbitrator. See id. at 229. The arbitrator decided that Massey should accept the settlement. See id. at 229-30.
Contrary to the wishes of Massey, David then filed a Motion to Approve Settlement with the trial court. See id. at 230. Despite the serious conflict of interest, David allegedly appeared on behalf of Massey at the hearing on the motion. See id. During that hearing, David advocated on his own behalf but he did not inform Massey that he should retain independent counsel. See id. The trial court orally granted the Motion to Approve Settlement and directed Massey to sign a written release. See id. The court noted that if Massey refused to follow the directions of the court, it would issue a written order. See id. After Massey discharged David, Massey received a copy of the release by mail with instructions from David which directed him to sign the document. See id. When Massey refused, David renewed the Motion to Approve Settlement, which the trial court granted. See id. In accordance with the order of the trial court, the arbitrator in connection with the underlying settlement dispute was appointed to serve in the capacity of Guardian Ad Litem and signed the release on behalf of Massey. See id. The settlement required payment of $795,000 to Massey. See id. at 231. Fees and costs were to be paid to David's firm and another firm, Merkle & Magri, P.A., which Massey had retained and then terminated before he retained David. See id. at 229, 231. David's firm received a final fee and cost judgment in the amount of $193,824.59, and Merkle & Magri, P.A., received a final judgment in the amount of $420,396.75. See id. at 231.
Massey subsequently initiated a separate action against David in which he alleged legal malpractice. See Massey II, 953 So.2d at 601. The trial court bifurcated the proceedings, with a Phase I trial to be held on negligence and liability issues, and a Phase II trial to be held, if necessary, on the issue of damages suffered by Massey. See id. During Phase I, the jury found that David was negligent and that the negligence of David caused damage to Massey. See id. However, during Phase II, the jury awarded zero damages to Massey. See id. Massey sought review of the final judgment entered, and the First District affirmed. See Massey v. David, 952 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (Massey III) (table citation).
Thereafter, the trial judge entered a separate judgment for costs in favor of David. See Massey II, 953 So.2d at 601. Massey sought review of that second judgment and alleged, in pertinent part, that the trial court erred when it awarded costs for expert witnesses which he alleged to be contrary to section 57.071(2) of the Florida Statutes. See id. Massey contended that the trial court awarded expert fees to David based on the improper conclusion that section 57.071(2) was unconstitutional. See id. That subsection provides, in pertinent part:
Expert witness fees may not be awarded as taxable costs unless the party retaining the expert witness furnishes each opposing party with a written report signed by the expert witness which summarizes the expert witness's opinions and the factual basis of the opinions, including documentary evidence and the authorities relied upon in reaching the opinions. Such report shall be filed at least 5 days prior to the deposition of the expert or at least 20 days prior to discovery cutoff, whichever is sooner, or as otherwise determined by the court.
Id. at 601-02 (quoting § 57.071(2), Fla. Stat. (1999)). Massey asserted in the trial court that David was not entitled to an award of costs for the experts because he had not timely complied with the written report requirement delineated in the statute. At the same time, Massey conceded that the Fourth District Court of Appeal had previously declared section 57.071(2) to be unconstitutional in Estate of Cort v. Broward County Sheriff, 807 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
On appeal, the First District initially noted that the trial court made no findings with regard to the provisions of the statute and that the order awarding costs to David did not mention either Cort or the statute. See Massey II, 953 So.2d at 602. Nonetheless, even if the trial court had relied on Cort when it awarded the expert witness costs to David, the First District concluded that the trial court did not err because Cort "stands as the only appellate decision addressing this issue." Id. The First District then stated that "from our review, the Fourth District correctly found the statute an unconstitutional intrusion on 'the powers of the judiciary, through the Florida Supreme Court, to determine matters of practice and procedure before the Florida Courts,' " and agreed with the Fourth District that "section 57.071(2) does not create a right to recover expert witness fees, but rather sets forth the procedure for recov ering under that right." Id. (emphasis supplied) (quoting Cort, 807 So.2d at 738).
Massey seeks review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Massey II in this Court.
ANALYSIS
In 2002, the Fourth District in Cort expressly held section 57.071(2) to be unconstitutional as a procedural statute that unconstitutionally infringed on the authority of this Court to determine matters of practice and procedure for Florida courts. See 807 So.2d at 738. The analysis in Cort is much more detailed than that provided by the decision below. The Fourth District reasoned:
[Sjection 57.071(2) is unconstitutional because, through it, the legislature creates or modifies a procedural rule of court:
A rule of procedure prescribes the method or order by which a party enforces substantive rights or obtains redress for their invasion. Substantive law creates those rights. Practice and procedure are the machinery of the judicial process as opposed to the product thereof.
Military Park Fire Control Tax Dist. No. 4 v. DeMarois, 407 So.2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In DeMarois, this court found section 447.504(5), Florida Statutes (1979), unconstitutional. See id. at 1021. Section 447.504(5) provided that appeals from certain orders of the Public Employees Relations Commission would be "expedited" in the appellate court and given "priority" over other civil matters. This court concluded that there was "no doubt that a rule creating priorities among types of civil matters being processed by the state courts is procedural rather than substantive." DeMarois, 407 So.2d at 1021.
More specifically, we find Allstate's reliance on Knealing v. Puleo, 675 So.2d 593 (Fla.1996), persuasive. In Kneal-ing, the supreme court found section 44.102(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), which allows a party to make an offer of judgment after mediation ends, unconstitutional. See id. at 596. The court found that the statute did not expressly authorize an award of fees nor did it provide any other independent basis for awarding fees. See id. The court stated "[rjather than providing for an award of fees, section 44.102(6) alters the time limits for making and accepting an offer of judgment." Id. Therefore, in finding the statute unconstitutional, the Kneal-ing court was persuaded by section 44.102(6)'s failure to "create" a substantive right since section 768.79, Florida Statutes, already created the substantive right to attorney's fees based on an offer of judgment. Likewise, here, section 57.071(2) does not create a right to recover expert witness fees, but rather sets forth the procedure for recovering under that right.
Moreover, in Knealing, the supreme court noted that in Leapai v. Milton, 595 So.2d 12 (Fla.1992), and Timmons v. Combs, 608 So.2d 1 (Fla.1992),
[Wje found sections 45.061, Florida Statutes (1987), and 768.79, Florida Statutes (1989), constitutional despite their procedural aspects because they contained substantive provisions authorizing an award of attorney fees.
675 So.2d at 596 (footnote omitted). The court held that it could not apply that reasoning to section 44.102(6) because of its purely procedural nature. See id. We recognize that the substantive right for recovery of an expert witness fee as a taxable cost finds its basis in statutory law and has existed since at least 1949. See § 90.231, Fla. Stat. (1949); § 92.231, Fla. Stat. (2000). Nevertheless, due to the purely procedural nature of section 57.071(2), we are compelled to find that it intrudes upon the powers of the judiciary, through the Florida Supreme Court, to determine matters of practice and procedure before the Florida courts. See Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
"On October 28, 1981, the Florida Supreme Court issued an administrative order entitled In re: Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions.... " Reeser v. Boats Unlimited, Inc., 432 So.2d 1346, 1349 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). These uniform guidelines, adopted by the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges and published by the Florida Supreme Court, discuss at length the taxation of costs for expert witness fees and set forth no deadlines or requirements such as those contained in section 57.071(2). Moreover, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A) outlines the procedures for discovery of facts and opinions held by experts. There, no mention is made of having to file a report by the expert twenty days prior to the end of discovery or five days prior to the deposition of the expert.
We note that the legislature has graciously requested that the requirements of section 57.071(2) be adopted by supreme court rule in the event that any court of competent jurisdiction were to find the provision unconstitutional. This opinion holding the statute invalid will give our supreme court jurisdiction to review our decision and consider that request. See Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Id. at 738-39 (footnote omitted). No party in Cort ever sought review of that decision. As a result, section 57.071(2) has been in the status of having been declared unconstitutional for five years without the issue having come to this Court for approval or rejection after the analysis of the Fourth District. Further, because the Fourth District had been the only appellate court to pass upon the constitutionality of section 57.071(2), all trial courts during that time period were required to follow Cort. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla.1992) ("[I]n the event the only case on point on a district level is from a district other than the one in which the trial court is located, the trial court [is] required to follow that decision."). It is only now that the First District has agreed with the decision of the Fourth District in Cort, and Massey II has been timely presented to this Court for review, and we now address the constitutional challenge to section 57.071(2).
Relevant Constitutional Provisions and Case Law
Article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution prohibits one branch of government from exercising "any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein." Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const. Article V, section 2(a) provides this Court with the exclusive authority to "adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts." Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. Generally, the Legislature is empowered to enact substantive law while this Court has the authority to enact procedural law. See Allen v. Butterworth, 756 So.2d 52, 59 (Fla.2000). Thus, the issue in the instant case is whether section 57.071(2) is a procedural statute that im-permissibly encroaches on this Court's rulemaking authority. A facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is a pure question of law which is subject to de novo review. See City of Miami v. McGrath, 824 So.2d 143, 146 (Fla.2002).
This Court has provided the following guidelines to ascertain whether a statute is procedural or substantive in nature:
Substantive law has been defined as that part of the law which creates, de fines, and regulates rights, or that part of the law which courts are established to administer. It includes those rules and principles which fix and declare the primary rights of individuals with respect towards their persons and property. On the other hand, practice and procedure "encompass the course, form, manner, means, method, mode, order, process or steps by which a party enforces substantive rights or obtains redress for their invasion. 'Practice and procedure' may be described as the machinery of the judicial process as opposed to the product thereof." It is the method of conducting litigation involving rights and corresponding defenses.
Haven Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Kirian, 579 So.2d 730, 732 (Fla.1991) (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted) (quoting In re Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., 272 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla.1972) (Adkins, J., concurring)); see also Allen v. Butterworth, 756 So.2d 52, 60 (Fla.2000) (procedural law "include[s] the administration of the remedies available in cases of invasion of primary rights of individuals. The term 'rules of practice and procedure' includes all rules governing the parties, their counsel and the Court throughout the progress of the case from the time of its initiation until final judgment and its execution." (quoting In re Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., 272 So.2d at 66 (Adkins, J., concurring))).
Of course, statutes at times may not appear to fall exclusively into either a procedural or substantive classification. We have held that where a statute contains some procedural aspects, but those provisions are so intimately intertwined with the substantive rights created by the statute, that statute will not impermissibly intrude on the practice and procedure of the courts in a constitutional sense, causing a constitutional challenge to fail. See Caple v. Tuttle's Design-Build, Inc., 753 So.2d 49, 54 (Fla.2000); see also State v. Raymond, 906 So.2d 1045, 1049 (Fla.2005). If a statute is clearly substantive and "operates in an area of legitimate legislative concern," this Court will not hold that it constitutes an unconstitutional encroachment on the judicial branch. Caple, 753 So.2d at 53 (quoting VanBibber v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Ins. Co., 439 So.2d 880, 883 (Fla.1983)). However, where a statute does not basically convey substantive rights, the procedural aspects of the statute cannot be deemed "incidental," and that statute is unconstitutional. See Raymond, 906 So.2d at 1049. Moreover, where this Court has promulgated rules that relate to practice and procedure, and a statute provides a contrary practice or procedure, the statute is unconstitutional to the extent of the conflict. See Kirian, 579 So.2d at 732. Finally, where a statute has some substantive aspects, but the procedural requirements of the statute conflict with or interfere with the procedural mechanisms of the court system, those requirements are unconstitutional. See Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corrections, 790 So.2d 381, 384 (Fla.2000). Application of these principles can be found in case examples, one where a statute contained procedural aspects but nonetheless we concluded that the statute was valid, and another in which we held the statute to be procedural and therefore invalid.
In VanBibber, this Court considered the constitutionality of section 627.7262, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982), "Nonjoinder of insurers." See 439 So.2d at 881. The statute provided that, as a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action against a liability insurer, a noninsured individual must first obtain a judgment against "a person who is an insured under the terms of such policy for a cause of action which is covered by such policy." Id. at 882 (quoting § 627.7262, Fla. Stat.). The statute also authorized insurers to include a provision in liability insurance policies that precluded noninsured individuals from filing an action against an insurer until the noninsured had secured the entry of a judgment against an insured. See id. Although section 627.7262 had an impact on the procedural issue of joinder of parties, this Court concluded that the statute primarily created substantive law and was constitutionally valid because it (1) established a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action against an insurer and (2) accorded insurers the substantive right to include a provision in their contracts that prevented third-party actions until a judgment was entered against an insured. See id. at 882-83. In upholding the constitutionality of this statute, this Court specifically noted that the statute pertained to the regulation and supervision of insurance, a "field in which the legislature has historically been deeply involved," and further concluded that the statute "operate[d] in an area of legitimate legislative concern." Id. at 883.
VanBibber can be contrasted with the decision in Knealing v. Puleo, 675 So.2d 593 (Fla.1996), in which this Court considered the constitutionality of section 44.102, Florida Statutes (1993), a statute which enlarged the time for a party to serve an offer of judgment where a court-ordered mediation has occurred. See 675 So.2d at 594. Section 44.102 provided, in pertinent part:
(6)(a) When an action is referred to mediation by court order, the time periods for responding to an offer of settlement pursuant to s. 45.061, or to an offer or demand for judgment pursuant to s. 768.79, respectively, shall be tolled until:
1. An impasse has been declared by the mediator; or
2. The mediator has reported to the court that no agreement was reached.
(b) Sections 45.061 and 768.79 notwithstanding, an offer of settlement or an offer or demand for judgment may be made at any time after an impasse has been declared by the mediator, or the mediator has reported that no agreement was reached. An offer is deemed rejected as of commencement of trial.
Id. at 595-96 (quoting § 44.102, Fla. Stat. (1993)). Section 768.79, "Offer of judgment and demand for judgment," which was cited in subsection (6)(b) of section 44.102, provided, in pertinent part:
In any action to which this part applies, if a defendant files an offer of judgment which is not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred from the date of filing of the offer if the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than such offer....
Id. at 595 n. 4 (emphasis supplied) (quoting § 768.79(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989)). This Court concluded that section 44.102 altered procedural portions of section 768.79 which this Court had incorporated into Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442:
Rather than providing for an award of fees, section 44.102(6) alters the time limits for making and accepting an offer of judgment. Section 44.102(6)(a) tolls the time periods of section 768.79 as incorporated into Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 from the date of the order of mediation until the mediation is complete. The result is that a party-may have more than the thirty days required by section 768.79 and rule 1.442 to accept an offer. Section 44.102(6)(b) allows a party to make an offer of judgment after mediation ends. As a result, a party may have less than the thirty days required by section 768.79 and rule 1.442 to consider and accept an offer. We have held that the time limits for acceptance of an offer of judgment, like those provided in section 44.102(6), are procedural. Accordingly, we read section 44.102(6) as setting forth only procedural requirements.
Id. at 596 (citation omitted). The Court, noting that a statute which provides parties with the substantive right to receive fees must do so expressly, concluded that even though section 44.102 referenced section 768.79, the former statute did not expressly authorize an award of fees, nor did it provide an independent basis for awarding fees. See id. Therefore, the Court held that section 44.102 was procedural in nature and, accordingly, unconstitutional. See id.
The Instant Case
The general provision for awarding expert witness fees as costs is located in section 92.231(2), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides, in pertinent part: "Any expert or skilled witness who shall have testified in any cause shall be allowed a witness fee including the cost of any exhibits used by such witness in an amount agreed to by the parties, and the same shall be taxed as costs." As noted by the Fourth District in Cort, this grant of authority to tax expert witness fees as costs has existed since at least 1949. See Cort, 807 So.2d at 738; see also § 92.231, Fla. Stat. (2006). In 1999, section 57.071(2) was enacted to provide:
Expert witness fees may not be awarded as taxable costs unless the party retaining the expert witness furnishes each opposing party with a written report signed by the expert witness which summarizes the expert witness's opinions and the factual basis of the opinions, including documentary evidence and the authorities relied upon in reaching the opinions. Such report shall be filed at least 5 days prior to the deposition of the expert or at least 20 days prior to discovery cutoff, whichever is sooner, or as otherwise determined by the court.
Under the substantive-versus-procedural analysis described by this Court in Kirian, we hold that section 57.071(2) is a procedural statute.
As noted by the Fourth District in Cort, the right to tax expert witness fees as costs is not at all delineated in section 57.071(2); rather, the substantive right was created in section 92.231(2). Thus, like the offer-of-judgment statute that we invalidated in Knealing, the statute at issue in this case does not expressly authorize an award of fees, nor does it provide an independent basis for awarding fees. Use of the language "[ejxpert witness fees may not be awarded as taxable costs unless" at the beginning of section 57.071(2) does not actually define a substantive right. Rather, the express right was created in section 92.231(2), and this language in section 57.071(2) is merely a prelude that attempts to introduce additional procedural elements related to the award of such costs. This prefatory language does not fix or declare any primary rights of individuals with regard to their persons and property, see Kirian, 579 So.2d at 732, and section 57.071(2) is not a substantive statute. We conclude that because section 57.071(2) only delineates the steps that a party must fulfill (i.e., the proverbial hoops through which a party must jump) to be entitled to an award of expert witness fees as costs, this statute is unquestionably a procedural one which conveys no substantive right at all. See Raymond, 906 So.2d at 1049.
Moreover, our conclusion is supported by the fact that it is impossible to reconcile Massey's assertion that section 57.071(2) is substantive in nature because portions of the statute with regard to the procedures fall completely to the absolute discretion of the courts, even if there has been a failure of compliance. The statute attempts to set a time for the submission of expert witness reports, but then provides that the time may be "otherwise determined by the court." Thus, a court remains free to totally disregard the filing times announced in the statute and to set a time period of its own. We cannot conclude that a statute establishes or defines a substantive right where it allows courts, by the express terms of the statute, to unilaterally alter those "rights."
Second, we conclude that section 57.071(2) is a procedural statute because the requirements of the statute conflict with the procedural mechanisms that have been clearly established by this Court through our rules of procedure. For example, section 57.071(2) contains a written report requirement and a time for filing a report. Conversely, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4) governs discovery of the facts known and opinions held by experts, and nowhere in this provision is there a requirement that an expert prepare a signed written report that "summarizes the expert witness's opinions and the factual basis of the opinions, including documentary evidence and the authorities relied upon in reaching the opinions." § 57.071(2), Fla. Stat. Rather, rule 1.280 provides that information from expert witnesses whom a party expects to call to testify during trial may be discovered as follows:
(i) By interrogatories a party may require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial and to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
(ii) Any person disclosed by interrogatories or otherwise as a person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial may be deposed in accordance with rule 1.390 without motion or order of court.
Fla R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4)(A).
Similarly, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, which governs the award of costs, contains no reference to written reports or time periods for filing such reports. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525 ("Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment...."). Additionally, the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions, which were approved by this Court, see In re Amendments to Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So.2d 612, 615 (Fla.2005), and are appended to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, contain no report requirement. Rather, the guidelines provide those costs that should be taxed for expert witnesses as: "A reasonable fee for deposition and/or trial testimony, and the costs of preparation of any court ordered report." (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, section 57.071(2) contains procedural requirements that do not exist in, and are in conflict with, the rules of practice and procedure that have been delineated by this Court for the discovery of expert information and for seeking reimbursement of fees for expert witnesses as costs. See Kirian, 579 So.2d at 732.
The substantive right to taxation of expert witness fees as costs was created in section 92.231(2), and therefore, we conclude that section 57.071(2), like the offer-of-judgment statute which was addressed in Knealing, is exclusively procedural in nature. Further, our ultimate conclusion with regard to the constitutionality of these statutory requirements is not controlled by whether they are listed under chapter 92 or another section of the Flori da Statutes. Regardless of location, these requirements would still impermissibly conflict with the rules of practice and procedure that have been adopted by this Court. See Jackson, 790 So.2d at 384.
Although not dispositive to our holding today, we further note that the session law which enacted section 57.071(2) indicates that even the Florida Legislature questioned whether provisions of that law violated the separation of powers:
It is the intent of this act and the Legislature to accord the utmost comity and respect to the constitutional prerogatives of Florida's judiciary, and nothing in this act should be construed as any effort to impinge upon those prerogatives. To that end, should any court of competent jurisdiction enter a final judgment concluding or declaring that any provision of this act improperly encroaches upon the authority of the Florida Supreme Court to determine the rules of practice and procedure in Florida courts, the Legislature hereby declares its intent that any such provision be construed as a request for rule change pursuant to s. 2, Art. 5 of the State Constitution and not as a mandatory legislative directive.
Ch. 99-225, § 34, Laws of Fla. Although the dissent opines that this language does not question the constitutionality of the session law, see dissenting op. at-note 8, a review of the legislative history of the law indicates that the Legislature indeed harbored such concerns. A Final Analysis prepared by the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary provided the following commentary with regard to House Bill 775, the predecessor to chapter 99-225, after discussing the separation of powers doctrine:
The courts tend to find certain types of provisions unconstitutional such as those regarding timing and sequence of court procedures, creating expedited proceedings, issuing mandates to the courts to perform certain functions, and attempting to supersede or modify existing rules of court or intrude on areas of practice and procedures. HB 775 contains a number of provisions which could involve matters of judicial practice and procedure. If the court were to strike any of these provisions, it would not invalidate the bill as a whole.
H.R. Comm, on Judiciary, HB 775 (1999) Staff Analysis 22 (final June 2, 1999) (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that chapter 99-225 impacted a number of statutes; it did not merely create section 57.071(2). See ch. 99-225, Laws of Fla. Hence, this cautionary language does not refer exclusively to this newly created statutory subsection.
The dissent quickly focuses on our ac-knowledgement of this fact, but it is evident that concerns as to the constitutionality of this legislation were very clearly expressed. Further, even though the dissent may disagree with use of legislative history, this Court has specifically stated that this history is an "invaluable tool" in construing the provisions of a statute. Ivey v. Chicago Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 494, 497 (Fla.1982); see also White v. State, 714 So.2d 440, 443 n. 5 (Fla.1998) (noting that legislative staff analyses are "one touchstone of the collective legislative will" (quoting Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A. v. Baker, 632 So.2d 669, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994))). Consistent with this precedent, this Court has utilized legislative history on numerous occasions in attempting to discern the intent of the Legislature. See, e.g., Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v. Tampa Bay Downs, 948 So.2d 599 (Fla.2006); State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817 (Fla.2002); Mays v. State, 717 So.2d 515 (Fla.1998); Magaw v. State, 537 So.2d 564 (Fla.1989); Roberson v. Fla. Parole & Proba tion Comm'n, 444 So.2d 917 (Fla.1983); Alford v. Finch, 155 So.2d 790 (Fla.1963). Accordingly, the dissenting view is contrary to longstanding Florida jurisprudence.
During both briefing and oral argument, it has been confirmed that all of the information that is required to be in the written report pursuant to section 57.071(2) was actually provided in this case to the parties through expert disclosures, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits and sworn deposition testimony. This information was provided based upon written court orders with regard to discovery requiring disclosure, and those disclosures occurred within the time frame contemplated by the statute. Thus, the spirit of the statute was fulfilled in this case because expert witness information was exchanged. The trial court was bound by the decision in Cort, and therefore, it is logical that the trial court did not condition the award of costs on compliance with section 57.071(2). Nonetheless, even if the decision in Cort did not exist, we could not conclude that a party who fully disclosed expert witness information to the opposing party, but failed to comply with the discovery requirements of the form of disclosure required by a statute, should be completely denied a reimbursement for expert witness fees on this basis.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we hold that section 57.071(2) impermissibly encroaches on the rulemaking authority of this Court because it imposes procedural requirements with regard to both the discovery of expert witnesses and the taxation of expert witness fees as costs which do not exist under the rules of practice and procedure that have been promulgated by this Court. Accordingly, we affirm the holding of the First District in Massey II that section 57.071(2) of the Florida Statutes is unconstitutional.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
CANTERO, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BELL, J., concurs.
WELLS, J., recused.
. We make no comment concerning the propriety of this provision as it is not an issue before us in this case. We do note that this agreement was submitted to and approved by the trial court in the initial litigation and the trial court's decision was not reversed on appeal.
. Massey also filed a separate action against David's firm; however, the firm prevailed on a motion for summary judgment. See Massey I, 831 So.2d at 228. Therefore, the firm is not involved in the instant proceeding.
. This Court further distinguished between the version of section 627.7262 at issue in VanBibber and an earlier version of the statute, which solely prohibited the joinder of a motor vehicle insurer in an action to determine the liability of the insured. See id. at 882-83. We held that the earlier statute was unconstitutional as a procedural statute that invaded our exclusive rulemaking authority. See id. at 882 (citing Markert v. Johnston, 367 So.2d 1003 (Fla.1978)).
. The rationale for this requirement is that "[cjommon law provided no mechanism whereby one party could be charged with the costs of another. Cost provisions are a creature of statute." Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Sawyer, 620 So.2d 757, 758 (Fla.1993).
. The dissenting analysis is based entirely upon the initial conclusion that the procedural aspects of section 57.071(2) are incidental because they only implement the alleged substantive right established in the first sentence of the statute (i.e., the report requirement). See dissenting op. at 944. We disagree. The conclusion that the first sentence of the statute is substantive merely because it commences with the language "[ejxpert witness fees may not be awarded as taxable costs unless" is not only faulty, but would also emasculate the constitutional provision which mandates this Court's authority to create rules of practice and procedure. Although the dissent asserts to the contrary, see dissenting op. at 945, under such an interpretation, to impose substantial changes in court practice and procedure the Legislature need only commence any statute with prefatory language which attempts to tie the statute to another in which a substantive right is established. Indeed, the Legislature would then be vested with the constitutional power to change every rule of practice and procedure adopted by this Court because under the dissenting analysis, the procedural aspects of such a statute would always be deemed "incidental" based upon prefatory language which purportedly renders the statute "substantive." Moreover, even though the dissent disputes our conclusion, it is quite apparent that under the analysis of the dissent, should the statute conflict with a rule of procedure, it is the rule that would be unconstitutional — regardless of how many procedural requirements the statute implements under the guise of a substantive enactment. See generally dissenting op. at 949 ("To the extent the 'substantive' report requirement itself conflicts with a procedural rule, it is the rule, not the statute, that is invalid." (internal quotation marks supplied)). This approach is contrary to both Raymond and Knealing. Use of such a reversed standard to determine whether a statute is substantive or procedural would vest the Legislature with the power to eviscerate all rulemaking powers constitutionally entrusted to this Court. We decline to endorse an analysis that would effectively authorize one branch of government to subsume the powers of a coequal and independent branch through the use of prefatory words.
. Although the dissent contends that section 57.071(2) does not conflict with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4) because the statute and the rule "apply in different contexts," see dissenting op. at 951, a review of the statute reveals that this distinction is illusory. The dissent does not acknowledge that the purpose behind the statute is to improve the exchange of discovery information between the parties. Since rules of procedure are already in place to accomplish the exchange of this same information, it is misdirected to conclude that a statute which renders an award of expert fees contingent upon compliance with a discovery-based report requirement is substantive. Moreover, the discretionary time limit for filing the report is linked to other aspects of the discovery process — i.e., the dates of the expert depositions and the discovery cutoff date. Thus, contrary to the dissent's assertion, which imposes artificially rigid distinctions on processes which ultimately accomplish the same goal, section 57.071(2) clearly applies to the discovery process, and this statute constitutes a thinly cloaked attempt to amend the process by tying that which is clearly a procedural report requirement to a long-established substantive right which was created in another statute. Consistent with our holding that this requirement is purely procedural, we also note that under federal law, the report requirement for expert witnesses is located in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(b).