Domino's Pizza v. Gibson
Decision Date | 22 February 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 85803,85803 |
Citation | 668 So.2d 593 |
Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S79 DOMINO'S PIZZA, et al., Petitioners, v. Richard E. GIBSON, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal; Certified Great Public Importance; First District; Case No. 93-2526.
Millard L. Fretland of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond, Stackhouse & Stone, Pensacola, for Petitioners.
Louis K. Rosenbloum and Mark J. Proctor of Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Pensacola, for Respondent.
Jack A. Weiss of Conroy, Simberg & Lewis, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Wausau Insurance Company, amicus curiae.
We have for review Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance:
Does section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes, preclude expert testimony converting blood alcohol content from a percentage of blood serum to a percentage of whole blood?
Id. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question in the negative.
Richard E. Gibson was injured in an automobile accident while working as a pizza delivery man for Domino's Pizza. At the hospital, Gibson's serum blood alcohol content measured 0.293 milligrams of alcohol per deciliter of blood serum.
Gibson filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. His employer, Domino's Pizza, and the insurance carrier, Alexis, Inc., defended the claim on the grounds that section 440.09(3), Florida Statutes (1991), 1 precluded Gibson from receiving workers' compensation benefits for his injuries.
Gibson filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence of his post-accident blood alcohol content on the ground that the test was performed on blood serum rather than whole blood. Gibson cited the decision in Florida Tile Industries v. Dozier, 561 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), as authority that blood serum test results are inadmissible under section 440.09(3).
After hearing on the motion, the judge of compensation claims granted Gibson's motion, thereby excluding all evidence of Gibson's blood alcohol content. The judge subsequently issued a final order ruling that Gibson's accident was compensable and that the employer and carrier were liable for the payment of benefits.
On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal stated that it was constrained by its previous opinion in Florida Tile, which construed section 440.09(3) as making no provision for the testing of blood serum to determine blood alcohol content. 654 So.2d at 638. However, the court went on to state that it found no such limitation in the statute and no prohibition against the use of properly proved expert scientific evidence that establishes blood alcohol content by converting an analysis of blood serum. Id. Thus, the court certified the question to this Court. Id.
Florida Tile involved an employee of a ceramic wall and floor tile manufacturer who was found unconscious on a concrete floor six feet below his work station. 561 So.2d at 654-55. A blood alcohol test conducted at the emergency room reflected that the employee's serum alcohol level was 0.16. Id. at 655. The judge of compensation claims refused to apply the statutory presumption of causation by intoxication because he found that section 440.09(3) requires a test for alcohol in the employee's whole blood, not blood serum. Id. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the statute makes no provision for a determination of blood alcohol content based upon blood serum. Id.
We disagree with Florida Tile 2 compensation benefits. Because section 440.09(3) does not specifically exclude blood serum test results, those results are relevant to a claim that an employee had a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent or more at the time of an injury.
Although not directly on point, this Court's decision in Robertson v. State, 604 So.2d 783 (Fla.1992), is instructive here. Robertson involved Florida's implied-consent law, which requires all persons accepting a license to drive in Florida to consent to a blood alcohol test upon being arrested for driving under the influence. See §§ 316.1932-.1934, Fla.Stat. (1987). The statutes specify certain testing regulations that must be followed and includes an exclusionary rule prohibiting the use of test results taken contrary to its core policies. Notwithstanding this exclusionary rule, this Court determined that test results that did not comply with the statutory requirements can still be admissible on an independent basis to prove that a person was operating a vehicle with an unlawful blood alcohol level. Robertson, 604 So.2d at 791. If test results that do not comply with specific statutory requirements are not per se inadmissible, then the court should be given the same freedom to determine admissibility under Florida's Evidence Code in the instant case where the statute has no specific procedural requirements.
Furthermore, the Florida Tile interpretation contradicts sections 90.702-90.705, Florida Statutes (1991), which address opinion testimony by experts. As provided in section 90.702, an expert witness may testify in the form of an opinion if the expert's specialized knowledge would assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. Section 90.704 further provides that facts or data relied upon by the expert to support the opinion expressed need not be admissible as long as the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that subject. Serum blood alcohol tests meet the Frye 3 standard of general scientific acceptance and have been accepted by other courts to establish blood alcohol levels. See, e.g., Michie v. State, 632 So.2d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ( ). Thus, we answer the certified question in the negative: the statute does not preclude expert testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maddox v. State
... ... May 11, 2000 ... 760 So.2d 93 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, ... ...
-
Ramirez v. State
...based on PCR DNA testing); Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573 (Fla.1997) (barring evidence of child abuse syndrome); Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 668 So.2d 593 (Fla.1996) (approving evidence of blood alcohol tests); Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257 (Fla.1995) (barring evidence based on DNA band-shift......
-
US Sugar Corp. v. Henson, 1D99-2798.
...Frye's application in workers' compensation cases has been implicitly recognized by the Florida Supreme Court. See Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 668 So.2d 593, 596 (Fla.1996). We do share appellee's concern with the impact of applying Frye in workers' compensation cases. The legislature has sou......
-
Sheridan v. Catering Management, Inc.
...that the Frye test has been applied to workers' compensation cases dealing with serum blood alcohol tests, see Domino's Pizza v. Gibson, 668 So.2d 593 (Fla.1996), and infrared thermography, see K-Mart Corp. v. Morrison, 609 N.E.2d 17 (Ind.App.1993). See, also, Garcia v. Borden, Inc., 115 N.......