Frank Special, Petitioners v. West Boca Medical Center, — Pariente, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Pariente concurred that a new trial was required because restricting cross-examination of the defense expert concerning possible overdiagnosis of amniotic fluid embolus was harmful. She disagreed with applying the criminal harmless-error standard in civil cases, arguing that the beneficiary of an error should show that it was more likely than not that the error did not affect the verdict, and she would have upheld exclusion of the alleged witness-tampering evidence on the record presented. Justice Polston, dissenting, would have found the cross-examination error harmless, while Justice Lewis, concurring in part and dissenting in part, supported the majority’s harmless-error standard and would have allowed further development of the witness-intimidation evidence.