United States: Must Medical Treaters Be Paid For Their Testimony?

Last Updated: November 8 2013
Article by Michael L. Forte and Sara M. Klco

In personal injury cases, the plaintiff's treating physicians generally charge a fee for their testimony1.

Although Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390 entitles "expert" witnesses to a reasonable fee, an open question remains as to whether treating physicians are really experts for purposes of this rule.2 If they are simply fact witnesses explaining their medical observations, then a fee for their testimony may not be required.

The only Florida appellate court to address this issue essentially ruled a fee is unnecessary, but the opinion offers limited reasoning. In Comprehensive Health Center, Inc. v. United Automobile Insurance Company,3 a healthcare center sued its patient's insurer in county court for PIP benefits. When the insurer sought to depose two of the center's doctors, the center filed a motion for a protective order seeking prepayment of the doctors' deposition fees. At the hearing on the motion, the insurer argued the doctors were not entitled to fees because they were mere fact witnesses who would explain their treatment of the center's patient. The county court disagreed, and ordered the insurer to pre-pay $350 to each doctor.

The appellate division of the circuit court reversed. It reasoned the treating physicians were not experts "because they do not obtain their information for the purpose of litigation but rather in the course of treating their patients.4 The healthcare center then sought certiorari in the Third District Court of Appeal, which denied the petition. The Third District stated, without discussing Rule 1.390 or offering further explanation, "The circuit court correctly decided to apply Frantz.5'

In Frantz v. Golebiewski,6 a plaintiff sued a doctor for malpractice. The defendant's attorney then obtained a sworn statement from the plaintiff's subsequent doctor without first giving the plaintiff notice. When the plaintiff learned of the statement, she filed a motion to compel its production. The trial judge granted the motion and ordered the defendant to produce the statement. The defendant refused. The trial court then fined the defendant, prohibited the use of the statement by the defendant for any purpose, and ordered that the plaintiff be given notice before any such further statements were taken.

The Third District granted the defendant's petition for certiorari. It rejected the plaintiffs argument that a treating physician is governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5), which controls discovery of opinions from testifying experts. The court noted the rule is limited to expert opinions "acquired and developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, as in the case of an expert retained by counsel.7' It reasoned the plaintiffs subsequent doctor did "not acquire his expert knowledge [of plaintiff] for the purpose of litigation but rather simply in the course of attempting to make his patient well."8 As such, he essentially was a fact witness—albeit with specialized training—who had observed the plaintiffs medical condition. Therefore, the defendant's ability to obtain information from a treating physician was not limited to the methods allowed by Rule 1.280(b) (5) and the doctor's statement enjoyed the same work product protection as any other nonparty witness statement.9

Courts citing the Frantz decision stop short of ruling treating physicians always are fact witnesses. In Clair v. Perry,10 the court in a footnote acknowledged Frantz but stated "the rule is not absolute, and a treating physician may be deemed an expert in certain circumstances.11" Similarly, in Fittipaldi USA, Inc. v. Castroneves,12 the court cited Frantz and its progeny, but stated "the holdings in those cases address the categorization of treating physicians as ordinary witnesses but do not address the limits of such testimony. It is entirely possible that even a treating physician's testimony could cross the line into expert testimony.13

In addition, neither Comprehensive Health nor Frantz address the potential effect, if any, of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390. That rule provides: "An expert or skilled witness whose deposition is taken shall be allowed a witness fee in such reasonable amount as the court may determine." It defines "expert witness" as

a person duly and regularly engaged in the practice of a profession who holds a professional degree from a university or college and has had special professional training and experience, or one possessed of special knowledge or skill about the subject upon which called to testify.14

Absent from this rule is any requirement that the witness's opinions were "acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial." Practitioners are left without sufficient guidance regarding how this rule reconciles with Comprehensive Health.

Still, a defendant should be able to assemble a technical argument against being required to pay a treating physician. As an initial matter, the Third District's decision in Comprehensive Health—as the only appellate court decision on this issue—is binding upon all circuit courts in Florida.15

And aside from the Frantz situation, at least two other useful analogies exist. First, when courts at trial limit the number of experts per discipline, treating physicians generally do not count as experts.16

For example, in Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Perez,17 a defendant in a car accident case retained an orthopedist and neurologist to perform compulsory medical examinations of the plaintiff. Before trial, the court limited each party to one medical expert per specialty. The defendant objected because, as it turned out, the plaintiffs own treating physicians (one of whom was an orthopedist) had opined the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury. As such, the defendant sought to present testimony of its own CME doctors as well as that of the plaintiffs treaters. The defendant argued the treating physicians were not experts but rather fact witnesses. The trial court rejected this argument and precluded the defendant from calling the treaters.

The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial. It cited Frantz for the idea that treaters develop their opinions as a byproduct of trying to make their patients well, as opposed to developing them for litigation purposes. It ruled the plaintiffs treaters "should not have been classified as expert witnesses, but as ordinary fact witnesses not impeded by the 'one expert per specialty' rule imposed by the trial court:18

Second, treating physicians do not count as experts for the federal expert report requirement.19 Rule 26(a)(2) requires written reports of experts who are "retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case.19

The commentary to the 1993 amendments to Rule 26 specifies that "A treating physician, for example, can be deposed or called to testify at trial without any requirement for a written report." Similarly, the Middle District of Florida Discovery Handbook, Section II(E) observes:

The expert report is not required of a "hybrid" witness, such as a treating physician, who was not specifically retained for the litigation and will provide both fact and expert testimony (though nonretained experts must still be disclosed and are subject to regular document and deposition discovery). The parties are encouraged to communicate openly about all opinions that a treating physician is expected to render in support of a party's case.

Of course, practical considerations abound. If a court grants a motion to compel the testimony without a fee, the doctor likely would be unhappy to say the least, making the deposition or trial questioning more difficult. In addition, the plaintiff may become inspired to look at the fees charged by the defendant's experts, and seek to limit those fees.20 In that situation, the defendant often ends up paying the difference between the defense expert's original fee and the fee set by the court, potentially resulting in an overall net increase of the defendant's expert costs. Perhaps in the future a defendant will find itself in a situation conducive to fighting this fight, resulting in additional favorable case law from appellate courts.


1 See, e.g., Frantz v. Golebiewski, 407 So. 2d 283, 285 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) ("As a practical matter, medical professionals almost invariably insist—as every witness has the right to do—upon a formal deposition and the payment of an appropriate witness fee before giving a statement to the party adverse to his patient.").

2 Florida circuit court opinions on this issue are all over the board, and even some judges within the same circuit disagree. Compare. United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Flagler Med. Ctr., Inc., Nos. 08-535, 07-3529 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 22, 2010) (treating physician entitled to fee) with Rodriguez v. Allstate Indemnity Co., No. (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. April 14, 2003) (treating physician not entitled to fee).

3 56 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

4 Comprehensive Health Ctr., Inc., 56 So. 3d at 43.

5 Id. at 44.

6 407 So, 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

7 Frantz, 407 So. 2d at 285. Note that at the time of the decision, the rule in question was numbered 1.280(b)(3).

8 Id.

9 Accord Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Smith, 548 So. 2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Coralluzzo v. Fass, 435 So. 2d 262, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

10 66 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). 11 Id. at 1080 n.1.

12 905 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

13 Id. at 18, n. 1.

14 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.390 (emphasis added).

15 Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1992).

16 E.g., Carpenter v. Alonso, 587 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (In a medical malpractice case, "permitting the defendant doctor to testify as to his care of the plaintiff would not be a violation of 'the trial court's] expert witness limitation.").

17 715 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

18 Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 715 So. 2d at 291.

19 Interpretation of federal rules of procedure are persuasive on Florida state courts. Eg. Carriage Hills Condominium, Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc., 109 So. 3d 329, 334, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

20 Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.390 empowers courts to set a reasonable expert fee.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Michael L. Forte
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions