Opinion ID: 1800186
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was the trial court's action in dismissing cunningham's case an abuse of discretion?

Text: The crucial question before this Court on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in dismissing Tiffany Cunningham's case with prejudice. The Kilpatrick case cited above applies. In Kilpatrick we upheld a lower court's order dismissing a medical malpractice action with prejudice because the plaintiff failed to answer interrogatories. In Kilpatrick we stated that medical testimony that the doctor failed to use ordinary skill and care must be shown before an action in negligence is established. 461 So.2d at 768. The record in Cunningham II shows that Cunningham's counsel: (1) Initially failed to answer the interrogatories even after opposing counsel had granted her more time due to the hurricane. (2) Did not notify the court that she would not be present at the motion to compel. (3) Still did not answer the interrogatories after being granted an additional twenty days by the trial court, even if the hearing was void. (4) Replied falsely to the trial court when she stated that she did not know that discovery had not been complied with when she admitted receiving a notice from the trial court stating that discovery was incomplete. (5) Told a falsehood to the trial court during the November 6, 1985 hearing; stating that there was a signed under oath copy of the answers to the interrogatories that were mailed back in September but what she later filed with the court was poorly answered interrogatories that were not signed under oath and were dated November 7, 1985. (6) The poorly filed interrogatories did not establish possible negligence on Mitchell's part with expert testimony. These facts would tend to support dismissal with prejudice. Cunningham's counsel argues the White case in which this Court stated that dismissal was too harsh a punishment for the circumstances of that case. 509 So.2d at 209. White further states that when neglect is attributable to the attorney rather than to the party, dismissal may be inappropriate. 509 So.2d at 208. What we are actually faced with here is a delicate case of balancing. The operative word in the White case is may and White does not stand for the proposition that dismissal is not ever to be allowed. Furthermore, this is a medical malpractice action and the necessity of knowing what the theory of negligence is and who the plaintiff plans to call as an expert is vital. While it is unfair to deny Tiffany Cunningham her day in court because of the actions of her attorney, we must also consider the question in fairness to the defendant by making him continue to pay for plaintiff's counsel's mistakes through his own attorney's fees and his anxiety. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., dissents without written opinion.