Is Worley v. Central Florida YMCA (Fla. 2017) dead (overruled)?

It seems so with the passing of the Florida Tort Reform Act today (3.24.2023), which became effective upon being signed. In Worley, the Florida Supreme Court held 'the defense could not seek discovery information about the relationship between plaintiff attorneys and their referral of clients to medical providers, finding that was protected by attorney-client privilege.' As applied, defense attorneys have not been able to learn about Plaintiffs/Plaintiff law firms referral relationships with treating medical providers, those that treat plaintiffs after an accident. Did the plaintiff law firm refer its client(s) to the medical provider(s)? Is the medical provider's testimony tainted by this bias as they would, naturally, want to be retained on future cases to provide treatment? How many times have they been used by plaintiff's firms? The hybrid expert (treating provider/expert by education) has escaped many of these credibility questions due to Worley.

However, Governor DeSantis signed HB837 into law today (3.24.23) with a major overall of tort litigation in Florida. One such provision pertained to "letters of protection" (LOP). Although Boecher/Springer has allowed for expert discovery (hybrid and treating providers excluded), Worley has prevented defendants from fully developing the extent of this referral relationship; Worley has only been applied one-sided - pro-Plaintiff. Defense bar efforts to have Worley apply to the relationship defendant's/defense law firms have had with their experts have been shot down by the Florida Supreme Court. That is, until today, when HB837 became law. Here's the excerpt pertaining to the attorney-client referral relationship with medical providers. See if you think Worley was killed by tort reform.

(e) Whether the claimant was referred for treatment under [610] a letter of protection and, if so, the identity of the person [611] who made the referral. If the referral is made by the claimant's ]612] attorney, disclosure of the referral is permitted, and evidence [613] of such referral is admissible notwithstanding s. 90.502. [614] Moreover, in such situation, the financial relationship between [615] a law firm and a medical provider, including the number of [616] referrals, frequency, and financial benefit obtained, is [617] relevant to the issue of the bias of a testifying medical [618] provider. [bracketed numbers indicate line item from HB837]

Interesting choice of words, "medical provider", not expert.

If you are looking for experienced and assertive defense counsel, contact Scarborough Attorneys at Law (813) 253-0097.