Business attorney David Steinfeld arguing in court - Video 4
Video Description
This video shows what business attorneys really do in the courtroom. In this video Board Certified expert Florida business attorney David Steinfeld is defending a trial judgment on appeal that he won for his clients. Here he speaks to the appellant’s claim that the trial judge abused his discretion when he sanctioned the appellant for hiding evidence before the trial.
At the beginning of the trial the judge at that trial court level struck the defendant's counterclaim and some defenses because Mr. Steinfeld proved that the defendant hid material evidence from Mr. Steinfeld's clients in the case. That fact came to light right before the trial in a deposition. The evidence that the defendant tried to hide proved Mr. Steinfeld's case which is why the defendant tried to hide it.
Under Florida law sanctions that a trial judge might impose must be tailored to the conduct. Thus the appellate court had to essentially weigh whether the punishment fit the crime. The appellate judges all agreed with Mr. Steinfeld that the sanction was appropriately tailored to the wrongful conduct and upheld the trial judge's sanction.
At the beginning of the trial the judge at that trial court level struck the defendant's counterclaim and some defenses because Mr. Steinfeld proved that the defendant hid material evidence from Mr. Steinfeld's clients in the case. That fact came to light right before the trial in a deposition. The evidence that the defendant tried to hide proved Mr. Steinfeld's case which is why the defendant tried to hide it.
Under Florida law sanctions that a trial judge might impose must be tailored to the conduct. Thus the appellate court had to essentially weigh whether the punishment fit the crime. The appellate judges all agreed with Mr. Steinfeld that the sanction was appropriately tailored to the wrongful conduct and upheld the trial judge's sanction.
Video Transcript
Judge Kerry Evander: The question is on opposing counsel’s argument that given that the trial judge found that there was not a willful and deliberate attempt to not produce the explanation of benefits that was inconsistent to then impose the sanctions that the trial judge did.
Mr. Steinfeld: The case that I've cited in my brief from this court makes it very clear that there is no magic language. You don't have to say willful and deliberate. It has to rise to that level but you don’t actually have to call one of the parties out and say you willfully and deliberately withheld this evidence. To understand . . .
Judge Evander: But here it wasn’t an omission and the judge made a finding that he could not find willful and deliberate.
Mr. Steinfeld: Yes, sir, but what the judge was required to do and this was well briefed by both parties in the pretrial motions, the judge was required to examine all the facts of the circumstances. The judge was required to weigh and consider all of the options that he had available to him and the judge was required to enter a written order and a ruling defining why he chose the path that he chose and why he excluded certain others. That meets his requirement to demonstrate that he is using appropriate discretion in this situation and it insulates him if you will from being called on abuse of discretion. He did all that. He satisfied that.
Mr. Steinfeld: The case that I've cited in my brief from this court makes it very clear that there is no magic language. You don't have to say willful and deliberate. It has to rise to that level but you don’t actually have to call one of the parties out and say you willfully and deliberately withheld this evidence. To understand . . .
Judge Evander: But here it wasn’t an omission and the judge made a finding that he could not find willful and deliberate.
Mr. Steinfeld: Yes, sir, but what the judge was required to do and this was well briefed by both parties in the pretrial motions, the judge was required to examine all the facts of the circumstances. The judge was required to weigh and consider all of the options that he had available to him and the judge was required to enter a written order and a ruling defining why he chose the path that he chose and why he excluded certain others. That meets his requirement to demonstrate that he is using appropriate discretion in this situation and it insulates him if you will from being called on abuse of discretion. He did all that. He satisfied that.
Judges have discretion to sanction misconduct
To not give effect to Judge Mahl’s decision at the trial is tremendously impactful to all trial judges because it says to them regardless of the decision that you make, you with boots on the ground seeing the witnesses deciding the case making the decision how to run your court most efficiently, regardless of the decision that you make we're going to second guess you. And that is not really fair to Judge Mahl. He lamented for quite a while over what would be the appropriate response and he, Judge Berger you pointed out I believe earlier whether it was no I'm sorry Judge Evander, you mentioned earlier that was it a possibility that costs could have been paid for our expert that attorney’s fees could have been paid, Judge Mahl examined all that. And what he found was this case had been delayed significantly for quite a while, we were right on the eve of trial, that to delay it further would be inappropriate and work an injustice on both sides. There would have been more cost involved he found and he really went through these at great length both at the hearing and in his order. It would have been more expensive for us to have to come back and put on proof of the costs and fees and everything and it wouldn’t have solved anything.
Really what happened when you look at the forest for the trees throughout this approximately two years of litigation Florida Cardiovascular maintained this counterclaim that my clients had not turned in some kind of records that they were supposed to and therefore Florida Cardiovascular didn't have the documentation necessary to submit to the insurance companies so they could get reimbursement. They claimed $356,565 in damages and testified in deposition, Patty Reisinger specifically and in response to not one but two interrogatories and two request to produce that they did not have any documents to support that number because they did not submit any of this stuff to the insurance companies because it was too late when they discovered it, it was past the time to do so. Then about a week before trial these documents that were sent to insurers and paid by the insurers magically show up in the hands of this expert witness who is testifying about these EOBs.
Really what happened when you look at the forest for the trees throughout this approximately two years of litigation Florida Cardiovascular maintained this counterclaim that my clients had not turned in some kind of records that they were supposed to and therefore Florida Cardiovascular didn't have the documentation necessary to submit to the insurance companies so they could get reimbursement. They claimed $356,565 in damages and testified in deposition, Patty Reisinger specifically and in response to not one but two interrogatories and two request to produce that they did not have any documents to support that number because they did not submit any of this stuff to the insurance companies because it was too late when they discovered it, it was past the time to do so. Then about a week before trial these documents that were sent to insurers and paid by the insurers magically show up in the hands of this expert witness who is testifying about these EOBs.
The defendant lied and hid documents
It was critically important for my clients to be able to demonstrate the Florida Cardiovascular got nearly all of the money it claimed from the insurance companies. It was an outright fabrication for Florida Cardiovascular to say they didn't get paid at all. Those documents showed that they did and they had them in their possession. Judge Mahl grilled Patty Reisinger the office manager while she was on the stand at this hearing and asked her where these things were, when she had them, when she discovered them. She said the whole time they were sitting in her file cabin in her office and she knew what they were.
They never turned them over because if they turned them over it would have dispelled their entire damages case and we would have been able to wipe that thing out and show that they had no damages. This twelve to eighteen thousand number was a guestimate that was put on it as to sometimes not all the money is paid if you claim $100 you get 98 from the insurance company so there may be a little margin for error there or something like tha.t But what Judge Mahl did when he assessed what would be a fair response is he looked at all the options and because I left in the first two affirmative defenses which were the breach claims Judge Mahl said that would be fair because Florida Cardiovascular could still put on evidence of the alleged breach by my clients of these employment agreements. Therefore we would still have the same issues in the case it would just remove the damages and it would be fair.
What happened through the trial process which puts us in the position we are today is that Judge Mahl found that there was no breach. There was an allegation and Judge Mahl in the record was very clear with appellant’s counsel as to specifically what was their breach claim, what were the components. And they said the Raos violated administrative rules, they did not turn in these records to the hospital to Florida Cardiovascular and Florida Cardiovascular could not bill the insurance companies. Florida Cardiovascular had the opportunity through its first and second affirmative defenses at trial to put on any evidence it wished to prove what these administrative procedures were. They didn't because they had none. In fact Judge Mahl found in his final judgment that they had the opportunity to make administrative rules and they didn't. They had no administrative rules that could have been violated.
They never turned them over because if they turned them over it would have dispelled their entire damages case and we would have been able to wipe that thing out and show that they had no damages. This twelve to eighteen thousand number was a guestimate that was put on it as to sometimes not all the money is paid if you claim $100 you get 98 from the insurance company so there may be a little margin for error there or something like tha.t But what Judge Mahl did when he assessed what would be a fair response is he looked at all the options and because I left in the first two affirmative defenses which were the breach claims Judge Mahl said that would be fair because Florida Cardiovascular could still put on evidence of the alleged breach by my clients of these employment agreements. Therefore we would still have the same issues in the case it would just remove the damages and it would be fair.
What happened through the trial process which puts us in the position we are today is that Judge Mahl found that there was no breach. There was an allegation and Judge Mahl in the record was very clear with appellant’s counsel as to specifically what was their breach claim, what were the components. And they said the Raos violated administrative rules, they did not turn in these records to the hospital to Florida Cardiovascular and Florida Cardiovascular could not bill the insurance companies. Florida Cardiovascular had the opportunity through its first and second affirmative defenses at trial to put on any evidence it wished to prove what these administrative procedures were. They didn't because they had none. In fact Judge Mahl found in his final judgment that they had the opportunity to make administrative rules and they didn't. They had no administrative rules that could have been violated.
The defendant had the information it claimed it didn't
Second the evidence at trial also showed that Patty Reisinger was going to that cath lab and picking up on a weekly basis all of the records showing the work that my clients were doing. So even if they hadn't turned something in to Florida Cardiovascular, Florida Cardiovascular all long knew exactly what my clients were doing because they were picking these records up from the lab at the hospital at which they were working. Judge Mahl found there was no breach of the agreement on the part of my clients so therefore because you have to have breach and damages if you don't have the breach, you never reach damages.
That's why I said in my brief that if the court for some reason would find that this was two severe and would override Judge Mahl’s discretion what would happen is it would go back to the trial level and those facts remain static the trial court is just going to simply find that there was no breach of the contract by my clients so therefore we never reach damages. So Florida Cardiovascular has not been prejudiced in any way. So it becomes kind of an academic issue.
That's why I said in my brief that if the court for some reason would find that this was two severe and would override Judge Mahl’s discretion what would happen is it would go back to the trial level and those facts remain static the trial court is just going to simply find that there was no breach of the contract by my clients so therefore we never reach damages. So Florida Cardiovascular has not been prejudiced in any way. So it becomes kind of an academic issue.
Trial judges must be given deference
But I do feel based on what is in the record the Judge Mahl did his best. He really tried to give a balance back to the situation. He went through, both at the hearing and in his written order as he is required by law, all of the options from weighing the awarding costs, attorney’s fees, doing other actions, not allowing certain evidence in, and he felt in his discretion, sound discretion the best way as he said to re-balance the situation on the very eve of trial was to strike the counterclaim which literally just took out the damages portion. They still had the opportunity to put on evidence of breach and they couldn't prove breach and he found that they didn't prove breach.
Judge Evander: Any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Steinfeld: Thank Your Honors.
Judge Evander: Any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Steinfeld: Thank Your Honors.
