Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...liminates the requirement that expert witnesses disclose the facts and data underlying their opinion testimony and instead places the burden on opposing counsel to elicit such information through cross-examination. See Fed.R.Evid. 705; Fla.Stat.Ann. § 90.705 (West 1979); Jones v....

...re is not required prior to eliciting the opinion. If the cross-examiner inquires about the basis of the opinion, the expert must disclose the facts or data upon which the opinion is based and the court in its discretion may require such disclosure. § 90.705(1), Fla....

...Based on the record before us, the trial court did not err in permitting the State to inquire about appellant's prior criminal history. The State may cross-examine a defense expert on matters on which the expert relied in formulating her opinion. See § 90.705, Fla....

...1991); (3) in allowing the State to elicit testimony from Dr. Fleming identifying Duest's prior offenses after the witness stated that she considered the convictions in formulating her opinions (issue 7), see Johnson v. State, 608 So.2d 4, 10-11 (Fla. 1992); § 90.705(1), Fla....

...[7] The rule precluding expert testimony based on insufficient data, although procedurally modified by Florida's evidence code so as to allow the giving of the opinion without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, remains substantively the same. Thus, Section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1979), provides in pertinent part: "If the party establishes prima facie evidence that the expert does not have a sufficient basis for his opinion, the opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible unless th...

...for change of venue; 4) admission of evidence relating to his sexual relationship with Ramsey; 5) admission of evidence that Ramsey was pregnant; 6) admission of opinion testimony of State's blood identification expert without proper predicate under section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (1991); 7) failure to conduct a Richardson [5] inquiry before allowing the State's rebuttal expert to testify about the time of death; 8) failure to grant a mistrial after prosecutor made improper comments during c...

...The expert testified that in his opinion a bloodstain on Esty's coat matched Ramsey's genetic type. When the prosecutor asked the frequency that such a match would occur in the population, defense counsel objected on the basis that a proper predicate had not been established under section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted the expert to testify that only 2% of the population could match the DNA sample from the coat. An expert may testify without disclosing the facts or data upon which an opinion is based. § 90.705(1), Fla....

...This procedure raises the possibility that an expert might make an unsupported statement of opinion that is so prejudicial that cross-examination before the jury would not erase the resulting bias. See Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706, 710 (Fla. 1967); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 705.1 (1993 ed.). Thus, section 90.705(2) provides that " [p]rior to the witness giving his opinion, a party against whom the opinion or inference is offered may conduct a voir dire examination of the witness directed to the underlying facts or data for his opinion." (Emphasis added)....

...During cross-examination, defense counsel questioned the expert fairly extensively about the population studies which had been published in a recognized technical journal. Defense counsel did not establish "prima facie evidence that the expert [did] not have a sufficient basis for his opinion." § 90.705(2)....

...1971). [6] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(b) provides in pertinent part: Every charge to a jury shall be orally delivered, and charges in capital cases shall, and in the discretion of the court in noncapital cases may, also be in writing. [7] Section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1991), provides: (1) Unless otherwise required by the court, an expert may testify in terms of opinion or inferences and give his reasons without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data....

...The trial court did not err in admitting Allen's opinion. To avoid the situation where an expert was a conduit for inadmissible evidence, the judge required the state to have Allen give his opinion without disclosing the disputed facts from Watts' sketch. Section 90.705(1), Florida Statutes (2001) allows an expert to "testify in terms of opinion or inferences ......

...ing an expert opinion be admitted into evidence in order to establish the basis of the opinion."). If Smith wished to challenge Dr. Vega's testimony and inquire as to the basis supporting his opinion, he could have done so through cross-examination, section 90.705(1), or voir dire examination, section 90.705(2)....

...the probation revocation hearing that dealt with the incident where Valle attempted to run over the police officer. [8] Therefore, it was proper to cross-examine the experts concerning these incidents. Parker v. State, 476 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1985); see § 90.705, Fla....

...Smith claims that this hypothetical question was erroneous and the trial court erred by not granting his motion for a mistrial. Section 90.704, Florida Statutes (2007), permits an expert to base an opinion on inadmissible facts or data made known to the expert outside the courtroom. Section 90.705(1) permits the expert to testify without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data....

...Centex did not refute the adequacy of the data underlying Gauthier's opinions by presenting any experts of its own, and we cannot say with certainty that any omitted data was necessary to the formation of a sound opinion concerning the amount of the County's damages. Moreover, section 90.705(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that: [u]nless otherwise required by the court, an expert may testify in terms of opinion or inferences and give reasons without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data....

...On cross-examination the expert shall be required to specify the facts or data. Although this provision does not change the rule that an expert opinion is inadmissible if it is based on insufficient data, s ee Husky Industries, Inc. v. Black, 434 So.2d 988, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), section 90.705(2) requires the party against whom the expert opinion or inference is offered to establish the insufficiency of the underlying facts or data through a voir dire examination....

...If the examination establishes prima facie evidence that the expert has not relied on sufficient facts in forming an opinion, the proponent of the evidence must lay an additional foundation that the opinion is adequately based on relevant facts before the opinion is admissible. See § 90.705(2)....

...Tenzel believed these factors were almost non-existent. [2] The hospital records include a summary of the operation technique. [3] See, e.g., Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1967); Blocker v. State, 92 Fla. 878, 110 So. 547 (1926). We note that the Evidence Code, Sections 90.703, 90.704, 90.705, Florida Statutes (1979), changes Florida law in recognition of the difficulties presented by hypothetical questions. Section 90.705 now permits the expert to render his opinion without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data. The Sponsors' Note following § 90.705, (6C Fla....

...ng the admissibility of evidence. As to data underlying an expert opinion, Section 90.704 states that the facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be perceived or made known to him at or before trial. And, subsection 2 of Section 90.705 provides that before an expert witness gives his opinion, the party against whom the opinion is to be offered may conduct a voir dire examination directed to the underlying facts or data....

...This court has recognized that an expert opinion is inadmissible where it is apparent that the opinion is based on insufficient data. In Husky Industries, Inc. v. Black, 434 So.2d 988, 993, footnote 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), with specific reference to Section 90.705, Fla.Evid.Code, we noted that the counterpart to the rule which renders an expert opinion inadmissible if based on insufficient data is the rule which makes results of experiments conducted under dissimilar circumstances inadmissible (citations omitted)....

...f the parties. Opinions of the psychologist and evaluator which were in any way based on their review of these confidential materials could not be adequately examined at trial if the parents were not given access to the same records. Moreover, under section 90.705(1) an expert testifying to an opinion may be required, on cross-examination, to reveal the underlying facts and data upon which the opinion is based....

...For a real property expert's opinion of a reduction of market value to be admissible it must have a basis in facts and data reasonably relied upon by experts in the field of real property valuation, section 90.704, Florida Statutes (1993), and pass the test of section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Petitioners argue that evidence of contamination stigma should not be admissible because the stigma to their property is only temporary. However, we believe this argument is answered by what we require as the basis for the expert opinion as to a decrease in the value of the property. If respondent's expert meets the test of section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (1993), which we have set forth, then whether the stigma is or is not temporary will be encompassed within the examination and cross-examination of the experts....

...ate to elicit testimony from Dr. Fleming identifying Duest's past crimes after she testified *750 that she had considered his convictions in arriving at her opinions. Duest, 855 So.2d at 49 (citing Johnson v. State, 608 So.2d 4, 10-11 (Fla.1992) and § 90.705(1), Fla....

...y be those perceived by, or made known to, the expert at or before the trial. If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Section 90.705(1) provides: (1) Unless otherwise required by the court, an expert may testify in terms of opinion or inferences and give reasons without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data....

...The attorneys also refused to produce documents for the same reason. Westchester filed a pre-trial motion in limine seeking to bar S & S's expert testimony based on its inability to fully cross-examine the witnesses. The trial court granted the motion and excluded S & S's expert testimony. Section 90.705(1) of the Florida Statutes (1999) provides that on cross-examination an expert "shall be required to specify the facts or data" which underlie his or her opinion....

Florida Evidence § 702.5 (2011 ed.); see also § 90.705(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (“On cross-examination the

incomplete information is not admissible). Section 90.705 Florida Statutes (1989), states that if a “party

...We reject the notion that the expert may be used as a conduit for the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence. [1] On the other hand, the party against whom the expert opinion is offered may require the expert to reveal the contents of the hearsay information on which the expert relied. Section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1987) provides: (1) Unless otherwise required by the court, an expert may testify in terms of opinion or inferences and give his reasons without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data....

...bstantial and competent. II. Admissibility of Expert Testimony Defendant challenges the expert testimony of Theodore Toth, a metallurgist, and Gleason, a bomb technician. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence under section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1985), their opinions regarding the materials used in the pipe bombs because the underlying bases for their opinions were not properly established....

...to pay Caduceus, as required under the Agreement. During Appellant's case-in-chief, Mr. Schacht testified as an "expert in the field of insurance industry transactions and custom and usage." Appellee objected to his expert opinion testimony based on section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...We find that Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error because the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, in fact, correctly excluded Mr. Schacht's testimony. The trial court's decision to exclude Mr. Schacht's testimony was controlled by section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (2005), which states: Prior to the witness giving the opinion, a party against whom the opinion or inference is offered may conduct a voir dire examination of the witness directed to the underlying facts or data for the witness's opinion....

...In excluding Mr. Schacht's testimony, the lower court apparently overlooked the fact that his opinion was primarily grounded on facts or data that had been admitted into evidence: the parties' agreement and TDC's 2001 annual statement. The provisions of section 90.705(2), relating to the procedure for discovering the foundation of an expert's opinion, must be considered in connection with those of section 90.704, describing the type of information reasonably relied on by an expert....

...Hart Finance Corp., 521 So.2d 234, where the expert's opinion was based on unconfirmed data, and the appellant failed to establish the underlying facts on which it was based, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the testimony. § 90.705(2), Fla....

...The city asserts that the testimony of appellee's expert witness was insufficient to establish the causal link because no factual basis for his opinion was introduced at trial. [*] Finding that the expert testimony was both competent and sufficient to support the jury verdict, we reject the city's argument. Section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1981) provides: Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion....

..."It has always been the rule that an expert opinion is inadmissible where it is apparent that the opinion is based on insufficient data." Husky Indus., Inc. v. Black, 434 So.2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Martin v. Story, 97 So.2d 343 (Fla.2d DCA 1957) (opinion based on incomplete information is not admissible). Section 90.705 Florida Statutes (1989), states that if a "party establishes prima facie evidence that the expert does not have a sufficient basis for his opinion, the opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible unless the party offering th...

...d occur to the brain from a given trauma, see Executive Car, so also does the witness (more specifically, the witness in this case) lack established qualifications to trace prospectively what would occur to the brain in the future. Plaintiff, citing section 90.705 of the Evidence Code, contends that it was defendant's burden to establish that the expert *83 witness was not qualified in the field of his testimony. We disagree. Under section 90.705 "the burden of challenging the sufficiency of the basis for the opinion rests with the party against whom it is offered." City of Hialeah v....

...Based on these estimates, he opined that the wife was grossing at least $40,000, and earning at least $20,000 to $25,000 per year more than she was reporting on her tax returns. At trial the expert presented his findings without presenting the underlying data, as the Evidence Code permits. See § 90.705(1), Fla....

...d to prove, even by inference. Prior to the court's ruling on the motion in limine, appellant's attorney agreed to limit the facts upon which the experts based their opinion. Rather than allowing appellant to do so as dictated by section 90.704, and section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1983), the trial court granted the state's motion to prohibit the testimony....

...lacked a sufficient basis for his opinion that the duration and speed of the chase at night on well-populated streets was in reckless disregard of the safety of the public. Cf. Husky Industries, Inc. v. Black, 434 So.2d 988, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); § 90.705(2), Fla....

causation in a medical negligence case. See also § 90.705(2), Fla. Stat. (2010) (“If the party [against

...which he has been called to testify. See § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (1997). Also, if a party establishes that the purported expert witness "does not have a sufficient basis for the opinion, the opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible...." § 90.705(2), Fla....

...In and of itself, these two statements cover the essential elements of the case. After the proffer of these opinions, appellee's attorney declined the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor or to conduct a voir dire as to the validity of his opinions. Under section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1993), an expert may testify in the form of an opinion without disclosing the underlying facts on which the opinion is based....

...Damen intended to sell the fake cocaine. Yet, from the context, it is clear that the officer was discussing the counterfeit cocaine seized from Mr. Damen rather than giving an expert opinion regarding the drug's packaging. Finally, we recognize that section 90.705, Florida Statutes (1999), permits an expert to opine without first testifying to the underlying facts....

...that he had made "hundreds, thousands" of arrests for drugs. Yet, his testimony was conspicuously silent in providing evidence of the drug's packaging in any of the prior arrests. Nonetheless, without either objection or the procedural invocation of section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (1999), which permits a party against whom an opinion is offered to conduct a voir dire examination directed to the underlying facts of an expert's opinion, the officer's expert opinion that Mr....

...The court was obviously dealing in Johnson not with a discovery dispute but with whether evidence was relevant and therefore admissible at trial. The right of an adverse party to inquire into the facts underlying an opposing expert witness's opinion is covered by Florida Stat.Ann. section 90.705, which provides: 90.705 Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion....

...If the party establishes prima facie evidence that the expert does not *1115 have a sufficient basis for his opinion, the opinions and inferences of the expert are inadmissible unless the party offering the testimony establishes the underlying facts or data. See § 90.705, Fla....

...mentation, reports, statements and any other item relied upon by the expert in order to formulate his opinion." This order was based on the right of an adverse party to inquire into the facts underlying the opinion of an opposing expert witness. See § 90.705, Fla....

...Under that rationale, the letters from defense counsel to the experts, which the trial court found were privileged, would also be discoverable, but the State has chosen not to cross-appeal that decision. *589 To support this novel position, which is totally unprecedented in Florida law, the State relies on section 90.705, Florida Statutes, as follows: 90.705....

...disclosure of a 22-page summary of testimony that the defendant gave in a co-defendant's case, and 5-page summary of events, entitled "David Gore Chronology." Id. at 1113. The Fourth District specifically rejected the State's argument, stating that section 90.705 "supplies no foundation if applied literally for pretrial disclosure of the facts on which the expert's opinion is based....

...in Northup v. Acken, 865 So.2d 1267 (Fla.2004). Nevertheless, Professor Ehrhardt concedes that "[t]he result may differ in the criminal context ..." 31 FLA. ST. U.L.REV. at 87. He states that: even if Reaves and Gore were mistaken in asserting that section 90.705 does not apply to expert depositions in criminal proceedings (as we suggest they were), Rule 3.220(g)(1) would nevertheless preclude discovery of opinion work-product known to or relied upon by an expert witness. The upshot, then, is that fact work-product remains discoverable in criminal proceedings by application of section 90.705, but opinion work-product is inviolate, at least until trial, based upon the protection afforded it under Rule 3.220(g)(1)....

...port, and the 2-page addendum, are reasonably expected or intended to be used at trial. If they are, we would of course agree that they are discoverable. We are not persuaded that simply because the State intends to use it in cross-examination under section 90.705 that the report and addendum qualify as "reasonably expected or intended to be used at trial." CONCLUSION We thus conclude that the psychological history report and an addendum to that *591 report prepared by the defense in this case constituted opinion work product....

...[8] However, it is worth noting that Robison would have been permitted to testify to his opinion and his reason for changing his opinion, Hawker's admission, without explaining the underlying rationale for the change unless questioned regarding such on cross-examination under Florida Statutes section 90.705(1).

...f all reasonable beneficial uses of their property. We believe the Town has met its burden in this appeal. The only evidence that supports a finding that appellees were deprived of all beneficial use of their property is the testimony of Mr. Gaskin. Section 90.705(2), Florida Statutes (1983) provides: Prior to the [expert] witness giving his opinion, a party against whom the opinion or inference is offered may conduct a voir dire examination of the witness directed to the underlying facts or data for his opinion....

been excluded as premised upon insufficient data. § 90.705(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). The trial court has wide

materials and information supporting his opinions. § 90.705(2), Fla.Stat. (1991); Newell v. Best Sec. Sys

by law”). . § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2009). .§ 90.705(1), Fla. Stat. (2009) ("On cross-examination the

...Although an expert should not be used as a conduit for inadmissible evidence, this prohibition is inapplicable when otherwise inadmissible evidence of the facts and data supporting the expert’s opinion is brought out in cross-examination. Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 933 So. 2d 124, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also § 90.705(1), Fla....

admissibility of expert opinion is governed by section 90.705, Florida Statutes, which provides: (1) Unless

purposes.” (citation omitted)); see also FLA. STAT. § 90.705(2) (2014) (providing that if the defendant “establishes

DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 27 (Fla.1983); § 90.705(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). Affirmed.

...If Defendants intend an *34 expert to testify about the spit test and its affect [sic] on his opinion, Defendants shall so notify Plaintiff's counsel prior to the testimony and Plaintiffs may request a voir dire examination of the expert under Florida Statute § 90.705(2) prior to the testimony....

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Section 90.705, Florida Statutes; City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So.2d 1127