Case Name: CEDAR HAMMOCK FIRE DEPARTMENT and Florida League of Cities, Appellants, v. James BONAMI, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-05-07
Citations: 672 So. 2d 892
Docket Number: No. 94-1681
Parties: CEDAR HAMMOCK FIRE DEPARTMENT and Florida League of Cities, Appellants, v. James BONAMI, Appellee.
Judges: KAHN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 672
Pages: 892–896

Head Matter:
CEDAR HAMMOCK FIRE DEPARTMENT and Florida League of Cities, Appellants, v. James BONAMI, Appellee.
No. 94-1681.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 7, 1996.
Keith A. Mann of Mann Employers Legal Group, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellants.
Teresa A. Marra of Marra & Kalo, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellee.

Opinion:
ALLEN, Judge.
The employer/servicing agent appeal a workers' compensation order awarding permanent total disability benefits, supplemental benefits, and chiropractic care, while finding entitlement to payment of an attorney's fee and costs. We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support each of these awards, but that the judge erred in excluding certain evidence.
In their pretrial witness list the employer/servicing agent indicated that a voca tional counselor might be called to testify, but they did not identify this individual by name. When the claimant subsequently inquired as to the identity of this witness the employer/servicing agent again maintained that they did not know the identity of this individual, and they did not provide the name of the witness until eight days before the hearing. The employer/servicing agent maintained that they were unaware of the individual's name until that time, but the claimant asserted that this late disclosure was prejudicial. The judge noted that the late disclosure was a violation of local rules, and suggested that the employer/servicing agent should have made a more diligent investigation so as to ascertain the name of the witness. Accepting the claimant's assertion of prejudice, the judge precluded the employer/servicing agent from using this evidence.
The claimant did not describe the manner in which he was prejudiced, other than to say that he was not sure who would be called to testify. However, the claimant's attorney was present when the vocational counselor met with the claimant at the attorney's office, and the employer/servicing agent provided the claimant with a copy of the vocational counselor's report. In the absence of other compelling circumstances, late disclosure which does not result in actual prejudice does not ordinarily warrant the exclusion of evidence. Walters v. Keebler Co., 652 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Such a sanction may be unduly harsh even when there has been a deliberate violation of local rules. Horizon Healthcare v. Murphy, 660 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The claimant did not establish actual prejudice in the present ease, and although Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So.2d 1310 (Fla.1981), indicates that the judge has broad discretion in this area, in these circumstances the exclusion of evidence was an abuse of discretion.
Because the excluded evidence impacts the award of permanent total and supplemental benefits, the appealed order is reversed in this regard. The order is otherwise affirmed, and the case is remanded.
KAHN, J., concurs.
ZEHMER, C.J., dissents with written opinion.