Case Name: Rita TEMPLER and Paul Templer, Appellants, v. N. Ralph FRANKEL, M.D. and Tenet Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Tenet Physicians Services, a foreign corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-05-26
Citations: 873 So. 2d 594
Docket Number: No. 3D03-42
Parties: Rita TEMPLER and Paul Templer, Appellants, v. N. Ralph FRANKEL, M.D. and Tenet Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Tenet Physicians Services, a foreign corporation, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., SHEVIN and WELLS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 873
Pages: 594–594

Head Matter:
Rita TEMPLER and Paul Templer, Appellants, v. N. Ralph FRANKEL, M.D. and Tenet Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Tenet Physicians Services, a foreign corporation, Appellees.
No. 3D03-42.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 26, 2004.
Ratzan & Alters, Miami; Angelo, Barry & Boldt and Kimberly L. Boldt, Miami, for appellants.
Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Cor-tina and Gail Leverett Parenti, Coral Gables, for appellee, N. Ralph Frankel, M.D.
Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford and Shelley H. Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Tenet Physicians Services.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., SHEVIN and WELLS, JJ.

Opinion:
SHEVIN, Judge.
We affirm the final judgment. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered documents. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The plaintiffs' expert testified as to the same matter the documents would have illustrated: the standard of care the defendant-physician should have exercised, and how the patient's care should have been coordinated. Therefore, the exclusion was not an abuse of discretion. See Parker v. State, 873 So.2d 270, 2004 WL 112875 (Fla. Jan. 22, 2004)(exclu-sion of letters to attorney not abuse of discretion where attorney testified to same facts contained in letters). We also hold that the trial court did not err in limiting the scope of the expert's testimony. Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 854 So.2d 1264 (Fla.2003).
Affirmed.