1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |About Face! Florida Supreme Court Adopts Daubert Standard— Seven Months After Rejecting It

About Face! Florida Supreme Court Adopts Daubert Standard— Seven Months After Rejecting It

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.19

In a surprise reversal, the Florida Supreme Court last week adopted the state legislature’s 2017 “Daubert amendments,” replacing Frye with Daubert as the test for admissibility of expert testimony in the state’s trial courts.1 The decision comes just seven months after the court rejected the Daubert amendments as unconstitutional in DeLisle v. Crane Co.2 The switch is effective immediately.

When we wrote in our October 22, 2018 client alert that “the debate [in Florida] has come to an apparent end with the decision in DeLisle,3 little did we know how much the word “apparent” would matter. DeLisle was the “proper case or controversy” the Court had insisted was necessary to address the constitutional concerns it had raised about Daubert in a 2017 per curiam order.4 DeLisle held that the Daubert amendments were procedural, not substantive; as such, they could be enacted only by the Court itself.5 The Court declined to do so. “With our decision today,” said the Court, “we reaffirm that Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida courts.”6

But in its May 23 decision, the Court adopted, “according to its exclusive rulemaking authority,”7 the very same amendments it had rejected last October. Now, said the Court, “the ‘grave constitutional concerns’ raised by those who oppose the amendments to the Code appear unfounded[.]”8 Briefly addressing the merits of the two admissibility standards, the Court added that “the Daubert amendments remedy deficiencies of the Frye standard,” “will create consistency between the state and federal courts,” and will “help lessen forum shopping.”9

What changed in seven months? The composition of the Court. Since DeLisle, three of the judges in the 4-3 majority have retired. “Without now readdressing the correctness of this Court’s ruling in DeLisle…,”10 the three dissenters joined two new judges to form the majority in the May 23 per curiam order.

Have we reached the end of the long and winding road to Daubert in Florida? Perhaps. But the Court left an opening once more: “[W]e do not decide, in this rules case, the constitutional or other substantive concerns that have been raised about the amendments. Those issues must be left for a proper case or controversy.”11

1 In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code (May 23, 2019).

2 No. SC16-2182 (October 15, 2018).

3 Client Alert, “Florida Supreme Court Rebuffs Legislature’s Mandate to Adopt Daubert Standard,” October 22, 2018. 

4 In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, Order at 9 (Feb. 16, 2017).

5 DeLisle, slip op. at 7.

6 Id. at 19.

7 In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, Order at 1 (May 23, 2019).

8 Id. at 2.

9 Id. at 6.

10 Id. at 2.

11 Id. at 5.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.26.24

California Office of Health Care Affordability Notice Requirement for Material Change Transactions Closing on or After April 1, 2024

Starting next week, on April 1st, health care entities in California closing “material change transactions” will be required to notify California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability (“OHCA”) and potentially undergo an extensive review process prior to closing. The new review process will impact a broad range of providers, payers, delivery systems, and pharmacy benefit managers with either a current California footprint or a plan to expand into the California market. While health care service plans in California are already subject to an extensive transaction approval process by the Department of Managed Health Care, other health care entities in California have not been required to file notices of transactions historically, and so the notice requirement will have a significant impact on how health care entities need to structure and close deals in California, and the timing on which closing is permitted to occur....