Devlin v. Rosman, 67--865
| Decision Date | 27 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--865,67--865 |
| Citation | 205 So.2d 346 |
| Parties | Elizabeth DEVLIN, as Administratrix of the Estate of Howard B. Yount, deceased, and Deborah K. Yount, a minor, and Howard B. Yount, Jr., a minor, by their mother and next friend, Elizabeth Devlin, Petitioners, v. L. D. ROSMAN and Albert J. Rosman, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kelner & Lewis, Miami, for petitioners.
Dean, Adams, George & Wood and David Willing, Miami, for respondents.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
By certiorari there is presented for review an interlocutory order in an action for damages for wrongful death, under Ch. 768, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
A motion was filed on behalf of the defendants which stated that while the decedent was a patient in the Veterans Administration Hospital in Coral Gables prior to his death, certain tissue studies were prepared which thereafter were examined by Dr. Clark, a pathologist employed by the hospital; that a rule of the hospital prohibits the doctor from discussing the case of a patient of the hospital with a defendant's attorney, when litigation is pending, without consent of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney or unless the attorneys for both sides are present; that the defendants' counsel desired to confer with Dr. Clark in the absence of opposing counsel because it was intended to submit to Dr. Clark information which is their work product; and the motion further state that plaintiffs' counsel were not willing to agree to such conference with Dr. Clark in their absence. It appears that plaintiffs' counsel had indicated intention to call the doctor as a witness. The defendants' motion prayed for an order to require the plaintiffs or their counsel to consent.
The trial court granted the motion and ordered plaintiffs or their attorneys to sign a letter addressed to Dr. Clark, in the form set out in the order, referring to the pending action and to the hospital rule against discussion of the case with defendants' counsel in absence of opposing counsel unless they consent, and stating to Dr. Clark that the required consent was thereby given.
The petitioners contend that the freedom of choice of themselves or their attorneys in such a matter should be respected, and that the court could not properly force them or their counsel to give such consent as a means of circumventing the above mentioned rule maintained by the Veterans Hospital. The respondents, on the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Miller
...that his views or testimony be given only upon deposition or at a trial or other court proceeding * * *." Devlin v. Rosman, 205 So.2d 346, 347 (D.Ct.App.Fla.1967) (per curiam). A juror ought not even be burdened with the necessity of insisting that he does not wish to be interviewed. Leavin......
-
Depositon potpourri or helpful hints to avoid deposition fatigue.
...without the presence or input of opposing counsel. This long-standing legal principle was recognized by the court in Devlin v. Rossman, 205 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA It is the general rule that attorneys for one party in a pending cause are free to interview the other party's intended witness......