Case Name: Rosa Maria ESCOTO, etc., Appellant, v. Karl DREHOBL, M.D., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-02-22
Citations: 924 So. 2d 68
Docket Number: No. 3D04-1520
Parties: Rosa Maria ESCOTO, etc., Appellant, v. Karl DREHOBL, M.D., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 924
Pages: 68–69

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 remand ing 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).