In DeLisle, the defendants challenged the admissibility of the plaintiff’s proposed expert testimony regarding causation in a mesothelioma case. The trial court ruled that the proposed expert testimony was admissible. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court failed to properly exercise its gatekeeping function under the Daubert standard for admission of expert testimony. DeLisle sought review of the Fourth District’s decision by the Florida Supreme Court, and for the first time directly challenged the constitutionality of the 2013 statutory amendments which replaced the more lenient Frye standard governing the admission of expert testimony with the Daubert standard, which applies in most jurisdictions including the federal courts.
The Florida Justice Reform Institute filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the supreme court should discharge jurisdiction because the Fourth District’s decision did not expressly and directly conflict with a prior decision on the same question of law.
In a 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court held that the statutory amendments instituting the Daubert standard unconstitutionally encroach upon the court’s authority to set court rules, reaffirming application of the Frye standard in Florida. In a dissent joined by Justices Polston and Lawson, Chief Justice Canady agreed with the Institute that jurisdiction had been improvidently granted.
FJRI represented by George N. Meros, Jr. and Andy Bardos of GrayRobinson, P.A. and William W. Large.