COURT AFFIRMS DAUBERT EXCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S CAUSATION EXPERTS; “NO LIVE HEARING” DOES NOT MAKE THE APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW DENOVO, AND THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION IN FINDING THE OPINIONS UNRELIABLE OR UNHELPFUL TO THE JURY ON “MORE LIKELY THAN NOT” CAUSATION
Williams v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D191 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 30, 2026).
The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice wrongful death case arising from the emergency care of a two-month-old infant which tragically resulted in her death. The plaintiff’s case depended on experts opining that an alleged delay in giving the baby antibiotics more likely than not caused the death.
The trial court excluded the plaintiff’s causation experts under section 90.702 and Daubert.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued the appellate court should apply de novo review because the trial judge relied on deposition transcripts and documents rather than a live evidentiary hearing in reaching his ruling. The plaintiff also argued the trial court “oversimplified” the opinions.
The court rejected both points and affirmed, finding that whether a hearing is live or not does not change the “abuse of discretion” standard of review, so long as the trial court conducts the correct Daubert analysis.
On the merits, the court concluded a reasonable judge could find the opinions were not sufficiently reliable and/or would not assist the jury in deciding whether the alleged delay in antibiotics more likely than not caused the death. The court noted for example, problems such as the lack of literature tying the specific delay window to improved outcomes at the stage of disease the experts assumed, and experts’ inability to move beyond generalities like “earlier is better” to a case-specific, more reliable causal link.
Because a reasonable judge could conclude that the expert testimony was not sufficiently reliable enough to support the plaintiff’s assertion that a delay in antibiotics more likely than not caused the baby’s death, there was no abuse of discretion, and the court affirmed the ruling below.