South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Jury Rejects Plaintiff’s Expert Witness’ Testimony in Recent Florida Car Accident Case

Published on: January 2, 2018 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued an opinion in a Florida car accident case requiring the court to determine if a jury was within its right to refuse to award future medical expenses to the plaintiff when the defendant failed to provide contradicting expert testimony. Ultimately, since the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was “far-from-conclusive,” the court determined that the jury was free to make the decision it did.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a Florida car accident that was caused by another driver. The at-fault driver either did not have insurance or had insufficient insurance to cover the plaintiff’s injuries, so the plaintiff filed an underinsured/uninsured motorist claim with her own insurance company. The extent of the plaintiff’s injuries were not conclusively established, but it was determined by her neurosurgeon that she suffered from degenerative disc disease.

The insurance company did not contest that the other driver caused the accident, but it claimed that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the accident. In support of its position, the insurance company attempted to present three expert witnesses. However, the court prevented the jury from considering the experts’ testimony.

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Case Against Pharmacy Following Medication Error

Published on: December 26, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued an opinion in a personal injury case that discusses principles that often arise in Florida medical malpractice cases and other personal injury cases. The case required the court to determine if the plaintiff’s evidence gave rise to a case of medical malpractice against the defendant pharmacist in the wake of a medication error. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s testimony failed to establish that the pharmacy violated any professional duty of care, and thus the medical malpractice claim was dismissed.The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff suffered from serious medical issues requiring that he take certain medication. One day, the plaintiff’s wife went to pick up her husband’s prescription from the defendant pharmacy. The plaintiff’s wife was provided a single bag with two bottles inside. Neither bottle had the plaintiff’s name on it, and neither contained the proper medication.

The plaintiff’s wife, not noticing the error, gave the medication to her husband. Later that evening, she found the plaintiff on the floor near the front door to their home. The plaintiff’s wife did not notice anything that could have caused her husband to trip, and she concluded that he fell on his own. The pharmacy error was later discovered, and the couple subsequently filed a personal injury case.

Florida Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Slip-and-Fall Case Due to Lack of Evidence Showing Business’ Knowledge of Hazard

Published on: December 22, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida premises liability lawsuit involving a plaintiff who slipped and fell as she was entering the defendant store. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s case should be dismissed because there was no evidence showing that the business owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard causing the plaintiff’s fall.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was accompanying a neighbor to a nearby big-box retail store. As the two arrived, they went to get a shopping cart under the awning immediately outside the store’s entrance. As the plaintiff started to walk toward the store’s entrance, she felt her right leg give out from under her, and she fell on her left knee. The plaintiff was then taken to the hospital and subsequently filed a premises liability lawsuit against the store.

The plaintiff later testified that she did not see the liquid before she fell, that there were no store employees around the liquid at the time of the fall, and that she was not sure what the liquid was or how long it had been there. The store filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to find that it had knowledge of the liquid.

South Florida Slip-and-Fall Accidents

Published on: December 19, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As a general rule, Florida landowners have a duty to those whom they invite onto their property to ensure that the property is reasonably safe for their visitors. While the specific level of the duty owed depends on the relationship between the parties as well as the purpose of the visit, in general, landowners must remedy known dangers and warn visitors of those dangers that cannot be fixed.When a visitor is injured on another party’s property, they may be entitled to compensation for their injuries through a South Florida premises liability lawsuit. In order to be successful, a plaintiff must establish that the landowner owed them a duty of care that was breached somehow by the landowner’s conduct, or by the landowner’s failure to take remedial actions. Additionally, a plaintiff must establish a causal link between the landowner’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries. A recent case illustrates the type of analysis that courts conduct when viewing premises liability lawsuits.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff dropped a trailer off at the defendant tire shop with her brother. The two entered the building, arranged for the repairs, and left without incident. However, upon returning later that afternoon, the plaintiff fell outside the shop as she stepped off the pavement and onto a slightly sloped strip of gravel that ran alongside the edge of the shop. The gravel was placed alongside the building to allow water to drain away from the shop. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff broke a bone in her leg.

Court Holds Jury Should Decide Issue Whether Insurance Company Is on the Hook for Plaintiff’s Future Medical Expenses

Published on: December 15, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing when summary judgment is appropriate in a car accident case involving the payment of future medical expenses. The case illustrates an important concept that is applicable in all Florida car accident cases when the at-fault driver’s insurance company disputes some aspect of the claim.In this case, the court determined that the expert witness testimony presented by the insurance company gave rise to a material issue as to whether the plaintiff’s continued medical care was a result of the accident. As a result, the court reversed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with a driver who was insured by the defendant insurance company. The insurance company acknowledged that the other driver was at fault and agreed to pay the plaintiff’s medical expenses in advance. In total, the insurance company covered approximately $53,000 of the plaintiff’s medical expenses.

Florida Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: December 12, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

When a someone is injured due to the negligence of a medical professional, they may be entitled to recover compensation for their injuries through a Florida medical malpractice lawsuit. All Florida personal injury lawsuits, especially medical malpractice lawsuits, are subject to strict procedural requirements that must be followed. One of the most commonly encountered hurdles that Florida medical malpractice plaintiffs face is the timeliness requirement embodied in the statute of limitations.In Florida, medical malpractice cases must be brought within two years of the date of the injury. In some cases, that timeframe can be extended if the plaintiff is young at the time of the injury or does not discover the injury until a later date. However, even under these circumstances, time is still of the essence because Florida’s statute of repose prevents a lawsuit from being filed more than four years after the injury unless there has been fraud or concealment.

A recent case illustrates how courts determine when a victim’s claim accrues – or when the clock starts ticking.

Plaintiff’s Claim Against Pharmacy Dismissed Due to Late-Filed Notice of Expert Testimony

Published on: December 8, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that illustrates the importance of following all procedural and court rules in South Florida medical malpractice cases. In this case, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against a physician and pharmacy, claiming that they overprescribed medication. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss whether the plaintiff’s late-filed notice of expert testimony should be admitted, and if not, whether the plaintiff’s claim must fail as a result.Ultimately, the court resolved both issues against the plaintiff, dismissing her case against both the pharmacy and the physician.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants, a physician and a pharmacy. The deadline for pre-trial discovery passed, and the plaintiff had not identified any expert witness who would be testifying on her behalf. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and on the day that hearing was scheduled to be held, the plaintiff announced that she would be having an expert testify.

Student’s Premises Liability Case Against School Dismissed Based on Lack of Causation

Published on: December 5, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving several interesting issues that are relevant for Florida accident victims. The case required the court to determine whether a school could be held liable for the injuries sustained by a student while playing floor hockey in gym class. Ultimately, the court concluded that the school was not necessarily immune from liability in all circumstances involving gym class injuries, but given the facts of this case, the school was not negligent.

The Facts

The plaintiff was a middle-school student at the defendant school. As a part of the physical education curriculum, all students were required to participate in team sports during gym class. One of the sports the students played was floor hockey.

Pursuant to school regulations, safety equipment was not necessary when playing floor hockey. However, the gym teacher instructed the students to avoid “high-sticking” and went over safety rules prior to beginning the game. However, during the game, the plaintiff was accidentally struck in the eye by another student’s stick. As a result, the plaintiff required eye surgery and several follow-up appointments.

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Case Based on the Fact that Injury Occurred Off Defendant’s Property

Published on: December 1, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

As a general rule, Florida landowners have an obligation to ensure that their property is safe for those whom they invite onto their property. The extent of this obligation depends on the relationship between the parties and takes into account the reason why the plaintiff was on the defendant’s property. For the most part, landowners must take action to clear known hazards or warn of the hazards that may not have been visible by the visitor’s naked eye. If a landowner fails to take the adequate precautions, they may be liable for a visitor’s injuries through a Florida premises liability lawsuit.In some cases, a landowner can be held liable for injuries that occur off their property, although this is a much rarer scenario. That is because the general rule is that landowners are not responsible to ensure a visitor’s safety before the visitor enters the property or after they leave the property. However, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s conduct increased the dangers involved, or if it obscured the off-site hazards, a defendant may be found liable for injuries occurring off their property.

A recent case provides an in-depth discussion of landowner liability as it pertains to off-site injuries.

Court Reverses Jury’s Verdict Based on Lack of Evidence Showing the Defendant Knew about Hazard that Caused Plaintiff’s Fall

Published on: November 27, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Earlier this month, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a Florida premises liability lawsuit requiring the court to determine if the lower court was proper to deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence showing the defendant knew about the hazard that caused her fall.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a patron at a BBQ stand that was located on property owned by a sports club. After dining, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a public sidewalk near the stand. She sustained serious injuries in the fall and filed a premises liability case against both the sports club as well as the county that maintained the sidewalk.

The plaintiff claimed that the sports club was negligent in failing to clean a grease trap, resulting in grease spilling onto the sidewalk. The plaintiff claimed that the county was negligent in failing to clean up the grease on the public sidewalk. The case went to trial, and a jury determined that the sports club and the county were each 50% liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and that the plaintiff was 0% at fault.