Chung v. Fink, 672 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Chung v. Fink, 672 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dina CHUNG, M.D.
v.
Malka FINK, etc., Respondents UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, INC., etc. v. Malka FINK, etc.
Nos. 85053, 85117.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Apr 11, 1996.
672 So. 2d 34
Esther E. Galicia of George, Hartz, Lun-deen, Flagg & Fulmer, Fort Lauderdale, for Dina R. Chung, M.D., and Dina R. Chung, M.D., PA, Steven E. Stark of Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot, P.A., Miami, for University of Miami, Anthony Lai, M.D. and Thomas A. Quetel, M.D., Stanley M. Rosenblatt, Susan .Rosenblatt and David C. Rash of Stanley M. Rosenblatt, PA, Miami, for Malka Fink, et al., Stuart H. Sobel of Sobel & Sobel, P.A., Miami, for Lawrence Forman., Roy D. Wasson, Miami, for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, Amicus Curiae.
Anstead, Grimes, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Shaw, Wells.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review Forman v. Fink, 646 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), which concerns the appropriate scope of discovery necessary to impeach the testimony of an opponent’s expert medical witness.[1] We addressed this same issue in Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996). In accordance with our decision in Elkins, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant case.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
1

We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.