Preview
Filing # 144743802 E-Filed 02/28/2022 03:29:38 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
19" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
OR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
FREDERIC CHARLES GREER, III, and
MELISSA ANNE GREER, as Husband and
Wife, and FREDERIC CHARLES GREER, III CASE NO: 2019-CA-000015
and MELISSA ANNE GREER, individually,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC. d/b/a MARTIN MEDICAL CENTER, a
Florida Corporation; KUNAL CHAUDHRY, M.D.;
and CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF STUART,
P.A., a Florida profit corporation,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANT, MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER’s d/b/a MARTIN
MEDICAL CENTER MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO OR
EVIDENCE OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES, OR CHANGES IN THE MEDICAL
RECORDS
Defendant, MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a MARTIN MEDICAL
CENTER (“MMMC”), by and through the undersigned counsel moves for an order in limine to
preclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from referencing or admitting evidence of discovery disputes or
otherwise implying that MMMC or its counsel delayed discovery, withheld evidence, or altered
the medical records. In support of its motion, MMMC states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a medical malpractice action in which it is alleged that MMMC by and
through its nursing care and alleged agent Dr. Kunal Chaudry was negligent in the care and
treatment of Plaintiff, Frederic Charles Greer, III (“Mr. Greer”).
2. Throughout the discovery process, Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly made the
following unsupported allegations:a. That the medical records were altered to change Mr. Greer’s ejection fraction
from 50% to 15%;
b. That the cardiac cath report records were altered because there are two versions
of the note that have differences in the way the data is displayed; and
c. That counsel for MMMC delayed in providing the Cardiac Transfers Decision
Tree From Tradition Medical Center (TMC) Interventional Lab policy
(“Decision Tree Policy”).
3. Each of these allegations are factually inaccurate, unsupported by expert testimony
and would constitute reversible error if presented to a jury.
4. Therefore, this Court should grant MMMC’s motion in limine to preclude
Plaintiffs’ counsel from referencing or admitting evidence of discovery disputes or otherwise
implying that MMMC or its counsel delayed discovery, withheld evidence, or altered the medical
records.
PROCED
HISTORY
IL The 50% and 15% Discrepancy
5. Plaintiffs have asserted that Mr. Greer’s ejection fraction following his perforation
was 50%, not 15%, and that the MMMC medical records were altered.
6. Throughout the discovery process, Plaintiffs deposed several witnesses to ascertain
whether the ejection fraction was 50% prior to the perforation. None of these depositions
corroborated Plaintiffs’ theory that the ejection fraction was later changed to 15% in the medical
record.
7. Plaintiffs then retained computer forensic expert Andrew Garrett! and conducted
an onsite inspection of the medical records. Neither the inspection nor Andrew Garrett could
corroborate Plaintiffs’ theory that the ejection fraction was changed to 15%.
' While not material to the outcome of this motion in limine, it was later discovered that Mr. Garrett’s qualifications
were at best quite exaggerated, and he has since been stricken under Daubert by another Court.
28. MMNMC subsequently moved to strike Andrew Garrett because he is not qualified
to render expert opinions regarding Mr. Greer’s electronic medical record. However, prior to any
hearing on MMMC’s motion to strike, Plaintiffs withdrew Mr. Garrett as an expert.
9. Since withdrawing Mr. Garrett, Plaintiffs have not disclosed a new expert in the
field of electronic medical records or computer forensics.
Il. The Two Versions of the Cardiac Cath Result Records
10. Since the medical records were not changed from 50% to 15%, Plaintiffs began
alleging that the medical records were altered in non-substantive ways.
il. More recently, as evidence that the medical records had been “altered,” Plaintiffs
point to two different versions of the cardiac cath result records.
12. The first version of the document was printed on September 7, 2017. The second
version of the document was printed on June 28, 2019.
13. In between September 7, 2017 and June 28, 2019, EPIC issued a print group update
which changed the way the data associated with Mr. Greer’s medical records is displayed.
14. The only differences between the documents are differences in how the data is
displayed. There are no true substantive changes between the two documents.
15. Additionally, Plaintiffs no longer have a computer forensics expert to support their
assertions that the versions were altered.
16. Certainly, Plaintiffs have no evidence to support a claim that any individual
manually altered the cardiac cath result record, nor any evidence as to why the record may have
been altered.
Ill. |The Production of the Decision Tree Policy
17. Inpresuit, Plaintiff requested the cath lab policies and procedures.18. | MMMC responded by providing a screen shot of the cath lab policies and
procedures that were presently in effect and asked Plaintiffs to advise if there were particular
policies they would like to review.
19. Plaintiffs subsequently requested five policies and procedures and did not request
the Decision Tree policy.
20. Once, suit was filed, Plaintiffs requested additional policies and procedures and still
did not request the Decision Tree policy.
21. Plaintiffs then deposed Cynthia Silva as the person with the most knowledge of the
cardiac cath lab policies and procedures and requested all cardiac cath lab policies and procedures
as a duces tecum to her deposition. Plaintiffs then obtained the Decision Tree Policy during Ms.
Silva’s deposition on March 6, 2020. At no time prior to March 6, 2020, did Plaintiffs request the
Decision Tree Policy.
22. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have continuously alleged that the Decision Tree Policy
was “withheld” or “newly discovered.”
ARGUMENT
I. It is improper for the the jury to consider discovery issues
In Emerson Elec. Co. v. Garcia, 623 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the trial court
permitted plaintiff’s counsel to accuse defendant’s counsel of “fraud,” hiding evidence, putting up
roadblocks to the discovery of relevant evidence, and picking and choosing the evidence it would
produce in response to discovery demands. The Third District reversed and remanded for a new
trial because of the “egregious conduct.” /d. The court noted that no pretrial discovery violation
was ever established, but even if there had been evidence of a violation, an appropriate sanction
would be a matter for the court and not something to be considered by the jury. Jd.Similarly, in SDG Dadeland Associates, Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So. 2d 997, 999, 1000, 1002
(Fla. 3d DCA 2008), Plaintiff’s counsel: (1) in opening told the jury that an incident report existed
but that the defendant failed to produce the report because it asserted the report was privileged; (2)
in closing mentioned the difficulties he had scheduling the deposition of the security guard who
responded to the accident; and (3) claimed that the defendant refused to turn over in discovery
additional photographs that would have been harmful to its defense. As in Emerson Elec. Co., the
Third District noted that no discovery violation was proven but even if a violation had occurred,
an appropriate sanction was a matter for the court and not for the jury. /d. at 1002. (Emphasis
added).
Applying these holdings to the present case, any references to or evidence of delays in
obtaining discovery, such as the production of the Decision Tree Policy, or insinuations that
MMNMC or its counsel has put up road blocks to discovery, withheld evidence, or altered the
medical records is improper and must be precluded.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ assertion that MMMC delayed in providing the Decision Tree Policy
is false. Plaintiffs knew of the existence of the Decision Tree Policy before suit was filed and failed
to request it until March 6, 2020. Any reference to discovery delays would only serve to inflame a
jury and prejudice MMMC.
I. There is no evidence that the medical records were altered by MMMC employees
and/or agents
Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to conduct extensive discovery on the issue of
whether the medical records were altered. They deposed multiple witnesses from Advent Health.
They conducted an onsite inspection of MMMC’s medical records on two separate occasions once
accompanied by a paid expert. Yet Plaintiffs were never able to uncover any evidence that the
medical records were altered by any of MMMC’s employees and/or agents. Without any evidencethat the medical records were altered, any reference to an alleged alteration in the medical record
is prejudicial and must be precluded at trial. See H&E Equipment Services, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 219
So. 3d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Attorneys must confine their closing argument to the facts and evidence presented to the
jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence. Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766
So. 2d 1010, 1028 (Fla. 2000). Further, according to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, an attorney
must not “allude to any matter that the lawyer does not believe is relevant or that will not be
supported by admissible evidence.” Fla. R. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.4. (Emphasis added). Moreover,
Florida courts have found error where an attorney makes remarks at trial that are not supported by
record evidence. See Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co. vy. Nolasco, 318 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
(fundamental error for plaintiff’s counsel to refer to defense expert witness as a liar or hired gun
where not supported by record evidence); Boyles v. Dillard’s Inc., 199 So. 3d 315 (Fla. Ist DCA
2016) (improper to refer to plaintiff’s deposition transcript in closing argument where it was not
admitted into evidence); City of Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (improper
to imply that police officers would be laughing if case ended in defense verdict because it was
inflammatory, prejudicial and not supported by admissible evidence).
There is no evidence that MMMC or any of its employees or alleged agents altered records
in this case. Therefore, this Court should preclude Plaintiffs from referencing, arguing, or seeking
to admit any evidence that MMMC or any of its employees or alleged agents allegedly altered Mr.
Greer’s medical records.
Ill. Plaintiffs no longer have an expert who can testify that MMMC altered medical
records
Expert testimony is permitted and necessary where the subject matter is beyond the
understanding of the average lay person. See AMH Appraisal Consultants, Inc. v. Argov GavishPartnership, 919 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Fla. Stat. § 90.604 (“Except as
otherwise provided in s. 90.702, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced
which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge’); Fla. Stat. 90.702
(“If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding
the evidence or determining a fact in issue a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill
experience, training or education may testify about it... .”).
Plainly, testimony concerning how electronic medical records systems work and whether
or not the metadata associated with an electronic medical record shows that the medical record
was altered is a scientific area which requires expert testimony. Since Plaintiffs no longer have an
expert to testify about the electronic medical record, this Court should preclude any reference to
or argument that Mr. Greer’s medical records were altered.
WHEREFORE Defendant, MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a MARTIN
MEDICAL CENTER requests this Court grant this Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs’
counsel from referencing or admitting evidence of discovery disputes or alleged alterations of the
medical records or otherwise implying that MMMC or its employees, alleged agents, or counsel
delayed discovery, withheld evidence, or altered the medical records, and any other relief this
Court deems just and proper.
CERTIFICATE, OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on thisg4fday of Febcualy 2022, a copy of the
foregoing was served via the Florida E-Filing Portal to the parties/on the attached service list.
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER
WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Attorneys for Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc.
200 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 2100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 462-9500 Co
™
Fax: (954 ey!
7
By: LO c >THOMAS G. AUBIN, ESQUIRE
FBN: 008060
taubin @stearnsweaver.com.
MATTHEW S. PODOLNICK, ESQUIRE
FBN: 112126
mpodolnick @stearnsweaver.com
SERVICE LIST
Peter J. Somera Jr., Esq.
Paul M. Silva, M.D., Esq.
Somera & Silva, LLP
2255 Glades Road, Suite 232W
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 981-8881
Fax: (561) 981-8887
pleadings @somerasilva.com
litigation @somerasilva.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Geoffrey N. Fieger, Esq.
Fieger Law
19390 West Ten Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48075
Phone: (248) 355-5555
Fax: (248) 355-5148
G.Fieger @Fiegerlaw.com
S.Teal @Fiegerlaw.com
Co-Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Adam Richardson, Esq.
Bard D. Rockenbach, Esq.
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
444 West Railroad Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel: 561-721-0400
ajr@FLAppellateLaw.com
bdr@FLAppellateLaw.com
fa@FLAppellateLaw.com
Appellate attorneys for Plaintiffs
Preview
Filing # 144743802 E-Filed 02/28/2022 03:29:38 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND OR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA FREDERIC CHARLES GREER, III, and MELISSA ANNE GREER, as Husband and Wife, and FREDERIC CHARLES GREER, III CASE NO: 2019-CA-000015 and MELISSA ANNE GREER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a MARTIN MEDICAL CENTER, a Florida Corporation; KUNAL CHAUDHRY, M.D.; and CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF STUART, P.A., a Florida profit corporation, Defendants. / DEFENDANT, MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER’s d/b/a MARTIN MEDICAL CENTER MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO OR EVIDENCE OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES, OR CHANGES IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS Defendant, MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a MARTIN MEDICAL CENTER (“MMMC”), by and through the undersigned counsel moves for an order in limine to preclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from referencing or admitting evidence of discovery disputes or otherwise implying that MMMC or its counsel delayed discovery, withheld evidence, or altered the medical records. In support of its motion, MMMC states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a medical malpractice action in which it is alleged that MMMC by and through its nursing care and alleged agent Dr. Kunal Chaudry was negligent in the care and treatment of Plaintiff, Frederic Charles Greer, III (“Mr. Greer”). 2. Throughout the discovery process, Plaintiffs’ counsel has repeatedly made the following unsupported allegations:a. That the medical records were altered to change Mr. Greer’s ejection fraction from 50% to 15%; b. That the cardiac cath report records were altered because there are two versions of the note that have differences in the way the data is displayed; and c. That counsel for MMMC delayed in providing the Cardiac Transfers Decision Tree From Tradition Medical Center (TMC) Interventional Lab policy (“Decision Tree Policy”). 3. Each of these allegations are factually inaccurate, unsupported by expert testimony and would constitute reversible error if presented to a jury. 4. Therefore, this Court should grant MMMC’s motion in limine to preclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from referencing or admitting evidence of discovery disputes or otherwise implying that MMMC or its counsel delayed discovery, withheld evidence, or altered the medical records. PROCED HISTORY IL The 50% and 15% Discrepancy 5. Plaintiffs have asserted that Mr. Greer’s ejection fraction following his perforation was 50%, not 15%, and that the MMMC medical records were altered. 6. Throughout the discovery process, Plaintiffs deposed several witnesses to ascertain whether the ejection fraction was 50% prior to the perforation. None of these depositions corroborated Plaintiffs’ theory that the ejection fraction was later changed to 15% in the medical record. 7. Plaintiffs then retained computer forensic expert Andrew Garrett! and conducted an onsite inspection of the medical records. Neither the inspection nor Andrew Garrett could corroborate Plaintiffs’ theory that the ejection fraction was changed to 15%. ' While not material to the outcome of this motion in limine, it was later discovered that Mr. Garrett’s qualifications were at best quite exaggerated, and he has since been stricken under Daubert by another Court. 28. MMNMC subsequently moved to strike Andrew Garrett because he is not qualified to render expert opinions regarding Mr. Greer’s electronic medical record. However, prior to any hearing on MMMC’s motion to strike, Plaintiffs withdrew Mr. Garrett as an expert. 9. Since withdrawing Mr. Garrett, Plaintiffs have not disclosed a new expert in the field of electronic medical records or computer forensics. Il. The Two Versions of the Cardiac Cath Result Records 10. Since the medical records were not changed from 50% to 15%, Plaintiffs began alleging that the medical records were altered in non-substantive ways. il. More recently, as evidence that the medical records had been “altered,” Plaintiffs point to two different versions of the cardiac cath result records. 12. The first version of the document was printed on September 7, 2017. The second version of the document was printed on June 28, 2019. 13. In between September 7, 2017 and June 28, 2019, EPIC issued a print group update which changed the way the data associated with Mr. Greer’s medical records is displayed. 14. The only differences between the documents are differences in how the data is displayed. There are no true substantive changes between the two documents. 15. Additionally, Plaintiffs no longer have a computer forensics expert to support their assertions that the versions were altered. 16. Certainly, Plaintiffs have no evidence to support a claim that any individual manually altered the cardiac cath result record, nor any evidence as to why the record may have been altered. Ill. |The Production of the Decision Tree Policy 17. Inpresuit, Plaintiff requested the cath lab policies and procedures.18. | MMMC responded by providing a screen shot of the cath lab policies and procedures that were presently in effect and asked Plaintiffs to advise if there were particular policies they would like to review. 19. Plaintiffs subsequently requested five policies and procedures and did not request the Decision Tree policy. 20. Once, suit was filed, Plaintiffs requested additional policies and procedures and still did not request the Decision Tree policy. 21. Plaintiffs then deposed Cynthia Silva as the person with the most knowledge of the cardiac cath lab policies and procedures and requested all cardiac cath lab policies and procedures as a duces tecum to her deposition. Plaintiffs then obtained the Decision Tree Policy during Ms. Silva’s deposition on March 6, 2020. At no time prior to March 6, 2020, did Plaintiffs request the Decision Tree Policy. 22. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have continuously alleged that the Decision Tree Policy was “withheld” or “newly discovered.” ARGUMENT I. It is improper for the the jury to consider discovery issues In Emerson Elec. Co. v. Garcia, 623 So. 2d 523, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the trial court permitted plaintiff’s counsel to accuse defendant’s counsel of “fraud,” hiding evidence, putting up roadblocks to the discovery of relevant evidence, and picking and choosing the evidence it would produce in response to discovery demands. The Third District reversed and remanded for a new trial because of the “egregious conduct.” /d. The court noted that no pretrial discovery violation was ever established, but even if there had been evidence of a violation, an appropriate sanction would be a matter for the court and not something to be considered by the jury. Jd.Similarly, in SDG Dadeland Associates, Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So. 2d 997, 999, 1000, 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), Plaintiff’s counsel: (1) in opening told the jury that an incident report existed but that the defendant failed to produce the report because it asserted the report was privileged; (2) in closing mentioned the difficulties he had scheduling the deposition of the security guard who responded to the accident; and (3) claimed that the defendant refused to turn over in discovery additional photographs that would have been harmful to its defense. As in Emerson Elec. Co., the Third District noted that no discovery violation was proven but even if a violation had occurred, an appropriate sanction was a matter for the court and not for the jury. /d. at 1002. (Emphasis added). Applying these holdings to the present case, any references to or evidence of delays in obtaining discovery, such as the production of the Decision Tree Policy, or insinuations that MMNMC or its counsel has put up road blocks to discovery, withheld evidence, or altered the medical records is improper and must be precluded. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ assertion that MMMC delayed in providing the Decision Tree Policy is false. Plaintiffs knew of the existence of the Decision Tree Policy before suit was filed and failed to request it until March 6, 2020. Any reference to discovery delays would only serve to inflame a jury and prejudice MMMC. I. There is no evidence that the medical records were altered by MMMC employees and/or agents Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to conduct extensive discovery on the issue of whether the medical records were altered. They deposed multiple witnesses from Advent Health. They conducted an onsite inspection of MMMC’s medical records on two separate occasions once accompanied by a paid expert. Yet Plaintiffs were never able to uncover any evidence that the medical records were altered by any of MMMC’s employees and/or agents. Without any evidencethat the medical records were altered, any reference to an alleged alteration in the medical record is prejudicial and must be precluded at trial. See H&E Equipment Services, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 219 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Attorneys must confine their closing argument to the facts and evidence presented to the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence. Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1028 (Fla. 2000). Further, according to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, an attorney must not “allude to any matter that the lawyer does not believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence.” Fla. R. Reg. Fla. Bar 4-3.4. (Emphasis added). Moreover, Florida courts have found error where an attorney makes remarks at trial that are not supported by record evidence. See Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co. vy. Nolasco, 318 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (fundamental error for plaintiff’s counsel to refer to defense expert witness as a liar or hired gun where not supported by record evidence); Boyles v. Dillard’s Inc., 199 So. 3d 315 (Fla. Ist DCA 2016) (improper to refer to plaintiff’s deposition transcript in closing argument where it was not admitted into evidence); City of Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (improper to imply that police officers would be laughing if case ended in defense verdict because it was inflammatory, prejudicial and not supported by admissible evidence). There is no evidence that MMMC or any of its employees or alleged agents altered records in this case. Therefore, this Court should preclude Plaintiffs from referencing, arguing, or seeking to admit any evidence that MMMC or any of its employees or alleged agents allegedly altered Mr. Greer’s medical records. Ill. Plaintiffs no longer have an expert who can testify that MMMC altered medical records Expert testimony is permitted and necessary where the subject matter is beyond the understanding of the average lay person. See AMH Appraisal Consultants, Inc. v. Argov GavishPartnership, 919 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Fla. Stat. § 90.604 (“Except as otherwise provided in s. 90.702, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge’); Fla. Stat. 90.702 (“If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill experience, training or education may testify about it... .”). Plainly, testimony concerning how electronic medical records systems work and whether or not the metadata associated with an electronic medical record shows that the medical record was altered is a scientific area which requires expert testimony. Since Plaintiffs no longer have an expert to testify about the electronic medical record, this Court should preclude any reference to or argument that Mr. Greer’s medical records were altered. WHEREFORE Defendant, MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a MARTIN MEDICAL CENTER requests this Court grant this Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs’ counsel from referencing or admitting evidence of discovery disputes or alleged alterations of the medical records or otherwise implying that MMMC or its employees, alleged agents, or counsel delayed discovery, withheld evidence, or altered the medical records, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE, OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on thisg4fday of Febcualy 2022, a copy of the foregoing was served via the Florida E-Filing Portal to the parties/on the attached service list. STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. Attorneys for Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. 200 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 2100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 462-9500 Co ™ Fax: (954 ey! 7 By: LO c >THOMAS G. AUBIN, ESQUIRE FBN: 008060 taubin @stearnsweaver.com. MATTHEW S. PODOLNICK, ESQUIRE FBN: 112126 mpodolnick @stearnsweaver.com SERVICE LIST Peter J. Somera Jr., Esq. Paul M. Silva, M.D., Esq. Somera & Silva, LLP 2255 Glades Road, Suite 232W Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 981-8881 Fax: (561) 981-8887 pleadings @somerasilva.com litigation @somerasilva.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Geoffrey N. Fieger, Esq. Fieger Law 19390 West Ten Mile Road Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: (248) 355-5555 Fax: (248) 355-5148 G.Fieger @Fiegerlaw.com S.Teal @Fiegerlaw.com Co-Attorneys for Plaintiffs Adam Richardson, Esq. Bard D. Rockenbach, Esq. Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: 561-721-0400 ajr@FLAppellateLaw.com bdr@FLAppellateLaw.com fa@FLAppellateLaw.com Appellate attorneys for Plaintiffs