Court Opinion

ID: 9958917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 14:04:01.850875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:11.397461
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 10, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-2147
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-3611
                           ________________

                                Dian Oved,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                 The Health Spectrum, LLC, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara
Areces, Judge.

      Goldberg Segalla, LLP, and Dustin C. Blumenthal (West Palm Beach),
for appellant.

     Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker, Mueller, Roberts & Smith, P.A., and
Stephen J. Bagge (Tampa), for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS, and MILLER, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc.,

561 F.3d 1298, 1304–06 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming ultimate sanction of

dismissal because “in a civil suit such as this one, the court may draw

adverse inferences against a party that invokes the Fifth Amendment” and

the court “reasonably inferred that [a party] had engaged in extensive and

disruptive surveillance of privileged communications” such that “neither [the

other party] nor the court would know the extent of [the party’s] activities or

how [the misconduct] would prejudice [the other party’s] position in the

litigation”); Atlas v. Atlas, 708 So. 2d 296, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[T]he

Supreme Court held that a court may draw an adverse inference against a

party in a civil action who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-

incrimination.”) (emphasis in original); Bowe v. State, 785 So. 2d 531, 533

(Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (denying motion for rehearing because party “offered

the [machine generated] ‘statement’ not to prove the truth of the matter

asserted, but to show that the recipient of the [device] was the [other party],

since the [device] appeared [at their location]”) (emphasis in original).

                                       2