O.J. McDuffie’s long, unsuccessful legal crusade against a Dolphins doc is all but over
The odds are growing increasingly long that ex-Dolphins wide receiver O.J. McDuffie ever sees another dime from the longtime team physician who treated his career-ending toe injury more than two decades ago.
An appellate court this week denied McDuffie’s request for a third civil trial against famed local orthopedist John Uribe, whose medical advice McDuffie has long insisted contributed to the premature end to his career and cost him millions in future earnings.
That leaves McDuffie — who last year filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy with more than $1 million in liabilities including, according to court documents, nearly $150,000 owed to the IRS — with the narrowest of legal paths forward.
“It was an honor to represent a doctor of the caliber of John Uribe,” Barry Postman, who was Uribe’s lead counsel on the case, wrote in an email. “We have long maintained that he acted appropriately in all aspects of his care to Mr. McDuffie. On behalf of all of the lawyers involved in Dr. Uribe’s defense we thank the jury for reaching what we believe is the just result and are pleased that the appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict. We wish the best to Mr. McDuffie in his future endeavors.”
McDuffie has been fighting an uphill battle ever since a jury awarded him an $11.5 million judgment in his first professional malpractice suit against Uribe.
The original suit alleged McDuffie was told by Uribe he could continue to play even though MRIs of the toe showed tendon damage. McDuffie followed that advice, but he was never the same.
McDuffie was in uniform for just nine games in 2000, none in 2001 and was cut before the 2002 offseason with three years left on his contract following a longer-than-average nine-year NFL career.
A county judge later threw out that first verdict and granted a new trial on the grounds that a medical manual erroneously was placed into evidence.
McDuffie lost the high-profile retrial in November 2018, with Uribe’s attorneys successfully arguing he met the standard of care. Witnesses in that second trial included Dan Marino and Jimmy Johnson.
During the retrial, Uribe’s team successfully sought to preclude any reference to Uribe’s and defense witness Mark Myerson’s prior testimony or opinions concerning the fault of foot specialist Robert Mills, which was improperly allowed in the first trial. Mills performed surgery on McDuffie’s ailing left toe during the Dolphins’ 2000 training camp.
After the jury ruled in Uribe’s favor, McDuffie appealed, arguing the lower court erred by excluding Uribe and Myerson’s prior testimony as impeachment evidence and by allowing two other doctors to testify without being qualified as expert witnesses.
The appellate judicial panel didn’t buy it.
“Upon a thorough review of the voluminous record and transcripts in this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to preclude testimony that it deemed irrelevant and evidence that it concluded was improper for impeachment,” the Third District wrote. “... [Furthermore] the court concluded that the testimony did not amount to expert testimony on standard of care or causation because the opinions rendered were based on the doctors’ personal knowledge, experience and treatment of McDuffie. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court admitting the testimony of the treating physicians.”
McDuffie plans to file a motion for rehearing of the Third District’s ruling.
On Friday, his attorneys Stuart Ratzan, Herman Russomanno, and Kimberly Boldt provided the Miami Herald this statement: “Mr. McDuffie is disappointed with the appellate ruling and feels that he did not get a fair trial. As a result of rulings by the second trial judge, Dr. Uribe was able to prevent the jury in the second trial from learning that he and his expert in the first trial had taken inconsistent causation positions in the first trial by blaming the premature ending of Mr. McDuffie’s career on toe surgery performed by another doctor and that, according to the trial judge in the first trial, Dr. Uribe had given testimony under oath ‘that was not true.’ Because causation and credibility were hotly disputed issues in the second trial as they were in the first, Mr. McDuffie feels that the trial judge’s exclusion of this important testimony affected the outcome.”
Miami Herald reporter David J. Neal contributed to this report.
This story was originally published April 3, 2020 at 3:10 PM.
