HARRIS SEMICONDUCTOR AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
LENA GASTALDI, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Harris Semiconductor and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a Judge of Compensation Claims' order compelling discovery of when the claims adjuster first recommended accepting the claimant as permanently and totally disabled. The court denied the petition, finding that the discovery request was proper and not protected by work product privilege because it sought factual information relevant to a bad faith claim.
The court held that the discovery request is not protected by work product privilege because it seeks factual information about recommendations, not mental impressions or trial strategy. The information is relevant and material to the bad faith issue, is not available through other sources, and is solely within the possession of the carrier, making any work product protection far outweighed by its probative value.
[1] Information sought by a party is discoverable if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
[2] The work product privilege does not protect information that is essential to the opposing party's case and unobtainable by other means.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The question requested information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence which was pertinent to the issue of bad faith in the e/c's handling of the claim. The JCC found the question did not seek mental impressions and/or trial strategy, but simply was designed to determine when and what recommendations were made regarding acceptance of PTD.”
Establishes the JCC's rationale that the discovery request seeks factual, not privileged, information
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA claimant filed for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits in May 1989 and simultaneously filed a bad faith claim against the employer/carrier. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Permanent Total Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, the employer/carrier (e/c), seek a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which granted a motion to compel. Finding petitioners have failed to establish a preliminary basis for relief, we deny the petition.
A claim for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits was filed in May, 1989. Claimant also filed a claim for attorney’s fees in May, 1989, alleging bad faith on the part of petitioners. On October 13, 1989, petitioners accepted claimant as PTD relating back to April, 1989, the date her treating physicians found her to be at maximum medical improvement. On November 20, 1989, claimant took the deposition of the claims adjuster who worked on her case and attempted to discover on what date the adjuster first recommended claimant be accepted as PTD. Petitioners objected to the line of questioning and the adjuster did not answer the questions. Claimant then laid a predicate to establish that the information was not available through any other source.
Claimant filed a motion to compel, which was granted and the JCC entered an order compelling the adjuster to answer the following question: “When did you first recommend that the claimant be accepted as permanently and totally disabled?” The JCC specifically found that the question did not seek information that was work product and was therefore not protected by the work product privilege. The question requested information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence which was pertinent to the issue of bad faith in the e/c’s handling of the claim. The JCC found the question did not seek mental impressions and/or trial strategy, but simply was designed to determine when and what recommendations were made regarding acceptance of PTD. Alternatively, the JCC found that even if the information could be deemed work product, it was still subject to discovery. The information sought could not be obtained by claimant by any other substantial means. The information is solely within the possession of the e/c and cannot be duplicated or ascertained in any other fashion. The information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issue of bad faith and any work product objection that might exist was far outweighed by the probative value that the question or testimony may have on the issue of bad faith.
Petitioners argue that the information sought is subject to the work product privilege, is not admissible into evidence, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. We do not agree. Petitioners’ reliance on Agri-Business, Inc. v. Bridges, 397 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), is misplaced. In Agri-Business, the JCC compelled disclosure of the carrier’s entire case file. Here, the JCC has reviewed the issue closely and has ordered the adjuster to answer a limited question. The answer to the question is obviously relevant and material to the issue of bad faith. Petitioners’ argument that the question cannot lead to admissible evidence is unpersuasive. Petitioners having failed to show that the order below constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
ERVIN, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.