Spoliation of Evidence
“Spoliation of evidence” describes the situation in which evidence cannot be produced by a party because of the inadvertent loss or the intentional destruction of that evidence. Spoliation of evidence involves the application of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380, because it is essentially a discovery violation. Pub. Health Trust of Dade Cnty. v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596, 599 (Fla. 1987).
In Valcin, the plaintiff’s ability to proceed in her medical malpractice action against a hospital was hindered because the hospital could not produce the records of her surgical procedure. Valcin, 507 So. 2d at 597. Without the production of those records, her expert was unable to give an opinion as to the hospital’s negligence. Id. The Florida Supreme Court held that the problem caused by the spoliation of evidence should be solved through the use of a rebuttable presumption that shifts the burden of proof against the party that lost or destroyed the evidence. Id. at 598–99.
The Valcin doctrine, as it is now called, is applied when, through the defendant’s negligence (or intentional act), essential evidence is missing or inadequate and such absence or inadequacy hinders the plaintiff’s ability to establish a prima facie case. Healthcare Staffing Sol., Inc. v. Wilkinson, 5 So. 3d 726, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Am. Hospitality Mgmt. Co. of Minn. v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So. 2d 342, 347 (Fla. 2005), the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed the Valcin doctrine and held that the available remedies for spoliation of evidence by a defendant are discovery sanctions and a rebuttable presumption of negligence for the underlying tort.
The Valcin doctrine is applicable to cases in which either primary or secondary evidence is lost, destroyed, or not maintained. Anesthesiology Critical Care & Pain Mgmt. Consultants, P.A. v. Kretzer, 802 So. 2d 346, 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Unlike a rebuttable presumption that merely shifts the burden of producing evidence, the Valcin Court explained, a rebuttable presumption for the spoliation of evidence shifts the burden of proof remains in effect even after the party who bears the burden introduces evidence that tends to disprove the presumed fact. Valcin, 507 So. 2d at 600. In other words, the defendant must disprove the existence of the presumed fact. Id.