Medical Negligence

Florida Appeals Court Dismisses Pro Se Medical Negligence Case Due to Statute of Limitation Issue

Published on: March 10, 2023 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent case, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a medical negligence complaint between a pro se appellant, the plaintiff, and the appellee, South Lake Hospital, Inc. (South Lake). The plaintiff later amended her complaint to include two employees of South Lake. The plaintiff filed a pro se complaint for negligence against South Lake following a car accident she experienced in 2016 and a subsequent misdiagnosis of injury by the South Lake emergency room staff. The trial court made a final order dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff’s amended complaint for damages against South Lake

On March 27, 2016, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in excruciating back pain and visible bruising on the left side of her chest. She was transported from the site of the accident to South Lake’s emergency room. The plaintiff would later allege that in the emergency room, after around two hours, she was discharged after being told that her pain was due to arthritis. The plaintiff then sought medical treatment three days later at a different medical facility, where according to her, it was discovered that she had sustained numerous fractures in her back.

In February 2020, the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against South Lake. South Lake moved to dismiss the complaint, and following a hearing on the motion, the plaintiff was given leave by the court to file an amended complaint. In December 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding an emergency medicine physician and a diagnostic radiologist as parties to the suit, asserting that both were employed by South Lake “when the negligence occurred.” Following a brief, the trial court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s actions “based upon expiration of the statute of limitations.”

Florida Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision in Wrongful Death Case

Published on: February 8, 2023 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

In a recent case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a wrongful death complaint between the Appellee, the plaintiff who is a personal representative of the decedent’s estate, and the Appellants, Cleveland Clinic Florida Health System (Cleveland Clinic). The plaintiff sued Cleveland Clinic for wrongful death after the decedent was admitted to the hospital through the emergency room, and healthcare providers performed an intubation action that caused fatal brain injuries. The trial court made a non-final order granting the appellee’s motion to amend a wrongful death medical malpractice complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages.

The decedent was admitted to the hospital through the emergency room. When his condition deteriorated, healthcare providers performed an intubation action that caused fatal brain injuries. To support their claims, the appellee relied on comments purportedly made by the hospital’s chief medical officer following the decedent’s death and arguments related to the appellants’ general failure to follow current policy procedures, make changes to their policies, and use the incident as a teaching opportunity for its interns, residents, and fellows. At trial, the court ruled that proffered evidence showed the doctors and other health care providers were grossly negligent by, contrary to the emergency room physician’s recommendation, placing the decedent on a floor level with fewer observation checks, failing to attend to the decedent during the various emergency calls, and beginning intubation without proper supervision, causing the delayed intubation that led to the decedent’s death. To support the punitive damages claim against the hospital, the trial court found a jury could conclude that the hospital’s response to the incident reflects its “condonement and ratification of the provider’s gross negligence.”

On appeal, the Cleveland Clinic argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff made a “reasonable showing” under section 768.72 to recover punitive damages. The appellate court reverses the lower court decision for two reasons. First, the appeals court found that the proffered evidence at the hearing failed to show that the healthcare providers involved were grossly negligent. Second, neither the complaint nor the proffered evidence demonstrated how the appellants’ actions either before or during the decedent’s treatment ratified or approved the healthcare providers’ alleged negligent conduct. The appellate decision stated that “appellee’s proffered evidence provided no reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages, which are reserved ‘to express society’s collective outrage.’” Further, the opinion states that even assuming the proffered evidence demonstrated gross negligence by the health care providers, the trial court erred in finding that a jury could reasonably conclude that the appellants ratified or condoned that negligence to subject it to punitive damages. The appeals court points out that the trial court relied on conduct that post-dated the treatment of the decedent and that such actions are not admissible on the issue of punitive damages. Subsequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court order.

The Presuit Requirements for a Florida Medical Negligence Lawsuit

Published on: May 1, 2022 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Florida medical malpractice claims require claimants to demonstrate that their medical provider made an error that fell below the “prevailing professional standard of care.” This standard of care varies depending on the provider’s specific care, skill, surrounding circumstances and incident. Thus, courts view the prevailing standard of care in light of the unique circumstances of the particular situation. Further, medical malpractice claims require claimants to establish causation. Even if a provider’s standard of care fell below the prevailing standard, claimants must still prove that the mistake was not inconsequential.

Medical malpractice can stem from a variety of situations. Under Florida law, misdiagnosis, surgical errors, failure to treat, anesthesia errors, medication errors, and specialist malpractice can precipitate a medical malpractice lawsuit. However, successfully recovering damages requires strict adherence to Florida’s various medical malpractice procedural and evidentiary laws.

The Supreme Court of Florida recently considered the statutory presuit notice requirement under section 766.106. In this case, the plaintiff mailed the notice before the expiration of the limitations period; however, the defendant did not receive the notice until after the period would have expired, absent tolling. At issue is whether the statute of limitations is tolled upon the claimant’s mailing of the presuit notice of intent to begin litigation.

Recovering from Medical Negligence on a Florida Cruise Line

Published on: May 7, 2021 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

As the weather warms up, many are looking to make summer vacation plans in preparation for enjoying the sunshine. A cruise, for many families, seems like the perfect opportunity to get away from it all. Cruises, however, are not immune to accidents or medical issues taking place while onboard—and sometimes, recovering following an incident on a Florida cruise ship where the cruise line may have been partially or fully responsible for your injury can become a murky ordeal.

In a recent Eleventh Circuit opinion, a plaintiff sued a cruise line after suffering a heart attack on board that left him with lingering medical issues. While on the cruise, the plaintiff had extensive symptoms consistent with a heart attack, and physicians on the ship treated him until he was able to be admitted to a hospital a day and a half later. Following his treatment, he eventually got a pacemaker and has continued medical issues because of the damage to his heart. The plaintiff sued the cruise line for negligence and claimed that its medical staff failed to diagnose and properly manage his status. After trial, the jury awarded approximately $1.7 million in damages to the plaintiff. The cruise line moved for a new trial based on faulty instructions to the jury.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the cruise line was not entitled to a new trial. The cruise line claimed that the lower court gave faulty instructions to the jury and refused to give maritime-specific instructions about medical negligence and the differences between cruise line medicine and land-based medicine. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the lower court properly administered instructions to the jury. Because district courts have broad discretion to formulate jury instructions on the basis of correct statements of law, the jury instructions may have been generally worded, the Court of Appeals reasoned, but they were correct.

Court Hears Case Stemming from Medical Malpractice Occurring on a Florida Cruise Ship

Published on: April 15, 2021 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

A Florida appeals court recently addressed several issues in an appeal stemming from an injury victim’s medical malpractice lawsuit against a cruise liner. The plaintiff, a Trinidad and Tobago citizen, departed from a Miami port for a five-day cruise. During the trip, the plaintiff became sick and visited the ship’s infirmary. The physicians determined the plaintiff was suffering from a heart attack and admitted him to the ship’s intensive care unit. They decided to refrain from administering certain medications, citing risk concerns.

Instead, they monitored him, and he was transferred to a hospital after porting in Miami. Subsequently, the plaintiff got a pacemaker. He filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the cruise liner, alleging its medical staff failed to properly diagnose him, treat his illness, and evacuate him from the cruise ship. A jury awarded him $2,000,000 in damages, and the court reduced the damages by $300,000. Both parties appealed several issues, including the defendant’s contention that they were entitled to a new trial.

The defendant argued that they were entitled to a new trial claiming that the lower court erred in their jury instruction. The law provides that cruise lines must treat their patrons with “ordinary reasonable care under the circumstances.” In the context of maritime medical negligence, the law explains that cruise lines medical professionals will not always be held to the same standards as those onshore. In this case, the court instructed jurors that reasonable care is defined by “all relevant surrounding circumstances,” and medical negligence occurs when a physician does something “that a reasonably careful” doctor would not do “under like circumstances” or failing to do something a careful physician would do “under like circumstances.”

What Constitutes a Florida Medical Malpractice Case?

Published on: July 23, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

When you head to an appointment with a Florida medical provider, you expect to be treated with respect and to get better soon. But what happens when you’re injured or hurt because of the health care service you receive? Can you sue for medical malpractice? Was it medical malpractice to begin with?

Medical malpractice cases in Florida are unique, in that they have their own requirements. When determining whether a medical malpractice theory applies, courts look to whether the injury arose out of the delivery of, or failure to deliver medical care or services by a health care provider. Healthcare providers in Florida include licensed physicians, osteopaths, podiatrists, optometrists, dentists, chiropractors, pharmacists, hospitals or ambulatory surgical centers. If the defendant is a health care provider under Florida law, then the case falls under medical malpractice and requires stricter procedural rules. Additionally, health care providers or facilities that are not expressly included within the definition of the statute can also be vicariously liable for acts of health care providers.

However, not all situations involving health care related services are necessarily considered medical malpractice in Florida. For example, in a recent state Supreme Court opinion, a plaintiff brought suit against her massage therapist after he allegedly sexually assaulted her during a massage. Before the assault, two separate customers had complained to the facility about the therapist’s conduct and how he had been inappropriate with them during their massages. The plaintiff sued the massage therapy company and claimed that it was negligent in its training, supervision, and retention of the massage therapist who assaulted her.

The Good Samaritan Act and Its Effect on Florida Personal Injury Claims

Published on: July 15, 2020 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Under Florida law, a person who suffers injuries because of a negligent healthcare professional may be able to recover for their damages. However, the plaintiff must meet specific requirements to succeed on their claim. Specifically, a plaintiff must establish that the healthcare provider had a legal duty to provide the appropriate care, that they breached that duty, and they suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s breach. To establish the “breach” element of a claim, plaintiffs must show that the healthcare provider’s conduct fell below the prevailing professional standard of care for a similarly situated provider.

Some healthcare providers try avoiding liability by evoking the Florida Good Samaritan Act (the Act). The Act protects some healthcare practitioners from liability when they are providing necessary emergency care. The Act covers physician assistants, nurses, and other professionals who provide emergency care. In these cases, the emergency provider may not be liable for civil damages if the claim stems from their emergency care or treatment, if another reasonably prudent person would have acted similarly. The law extends coverage, even if the patient did not receive treatment through an emergency room. However, plaintiffs can recover if they prove that the provider exhibited reckless disregard in their care, such that they knew or should have known that their behavior would create an unreasonable risk of injury or harm. Additionally, the Act may not apply when there are questions regarding whether the patient was receiving emergency medical treatment.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion addressing issues that often arise in Florida accident claims. In that case, the plaintiff suffered severe bodily injuries when an ambulance driver ran a red light and slammed into the plaintiff’s car. The ambulance was transporting a patient after he had undergone dialysis. The plaintiff argued that the ambulance driver was not carrying a patient during an emergency situation, and he was not using his lights or siren when he ran the red light. The defendant argued that they were immune under the state’s medical provider immunity act, and they did not engage in willful or wanton conduct. The plaintiff argued that merely operating an ambulance for non-emergency transport is not covered by the state’s act. Ultimately, the court found that the ambulance driver’s actions in driving and running a red light during a non-emergency event were not integral to providing care. Therefore, the court affirmed that the ambulance driver was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Negligent Credentialing in Medical Malpractice Cases in Florida

Published on: December 27, 2019 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Under Florida law, health care providers owe a duty to their patients. This duty requires doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to provide a certain level of care to their patients. When a medical professional fails to live up to this duty, and a patient is injured as a result, the patient may be able to pursue compensation through a South Florida medical malpractice lawsuit.

Medical malpractice claims can be complex, and they often raise several unanticipated issues. One of the most critical early decisions that an injured patient must make is which parties to name as defendants. Of course, the medical professional whose negligence resulted in the patient’s injuries is an obvious choice. However, there may be other parties that can be named to improve a plaintiff’s chance of recovering compensation for their injuries.

This stands true for all Florida personal injury cases. And a common source of liability is an at-fault party’s employer. For example, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held liable for the negligent acts of their employee. Thus, employers are routinely named as defendants in cases involving an employee’s negligence. However, most medical professionals are legally classified as contractors rather than employees, making a respondeat superior claim difficult, if not impossible.

When Must a Plaintiff Comply with Strict Requirements of a Florida Medical Malpractice Lawsuit?

Published on: May 14, 2019 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

When a patient is injured after receiving negligent medical care, they may be able to pursue a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit against the medical professionals they believe to be responsible for their injuries. Florida medical malpractice lawsuits, however, are subject to several additional requirements that can be burdensome for many prospective plaintiffs. For example, before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit, a plaintiff must determine that there are “reasonable grounds” for their claim by conducting a pre-suit investigation.

There are several other differences between medical malpractice cases and traditional negligence cases. For example, due to Florida’s medical malpractice damages cap, the number of damages available to medical malpractice plaintiffs are capped at a lower amount than damages in traditional negligence claims. Finally, the stature of limitations in a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit is just two years, whereas the statute of limitations for traditional personal injury cases is four years.

That being said, most Florida injury victims would prefer that their case be classified as one of traditional negligence. However, when a case arises in a quasi-medical setting, defendants routinely try to categorize a plaintiff’s claim as a medical malpractice claim. Depending on the nature of the claim, the stage of litigation, and the amount of time that has passed, this could completely defeat a plaintiff’s chance at recovering for their injuries. A recent case illustrates the types of arguments defendants make in hopes of successfully categorizing the plaintiff’s claim as one of medical malpractice.

Florida Court Attempts to Limit Class of Cases Subject to Burdensome Medical Malpractice Requirements

Published on: August 15, 2018 | by Friedman, Rodman & Frank, P.A.

Under Florida Statutes section 766.106, Florida medical malpractice plaintiffs must comply with certain additional procedural requirements. For example, a Florida medical malpractice plaintiff must provide pre-suit notice to the defendants, including a list of all of their medical providers for the two-year period prior to the incident as well as all providers seen subsequent to the incident. In addition, medical malpractice plaintiffs are subject to a shorter statute of limitations and must also present an expert affidavit in support of their claim.These additional requirements, while burdensome, may not seem like an insurmountable hurdle. However, in reality, defendants often attempt to raise a plaintiff’s failure to comply with the additional requirements as a defense after the lawsuit has been filed. Thus, a defendant may be successful in barring a plaintiff’s ability to recover damages by establishing that the plaintiff failed to comply, and by that point, it may be too late because the statute of limitations has expired.

Thus, the determination of whether a case is one of traditional negligence or medical malpractice is an important one. In a recent case, a state appellate court issued an opinion discussing the distinction between the two types of cases and which types of cases are likely to be considered ones involving claims of medical malpractice.