South Florida Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

Federal Court Awards Additional Damages to Plaintiff Based On Insurance Company’s Bad Faith

Published on: September 9, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently published an opinion affirming a federal district court’s ruling awarding a plaintiff triple damages in a breach of contract case filed against his insurance company. The plaintiff sued his insurer after the defendant refused to honor an underinsured motorist claim made by the plaintiff after another driver caused a car accident, resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. In addition to the damages initially requested by the plaintiff, the trial jury also awarded him $1.5 million in special damages because of the defendant’s unreasonable delay and denial of his initial claim. Based on the Tenth Circuit ruling affirming the jury’s award, the defendant will be required to pay the full amount to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff Suffered a Back Injury in an Accident with an Underinsured Driver

The plaintiff in the case of Etherton v. Owners Insurance Company is a Colorado man who was injured in an auto accident in 2009. The at-fault driver was insured with $250,000 worth of liability coverage, although the plaintiff claimed to have suffered at least $1 million in damages from the crash. The plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant, his own insurance company, seeking compensation through his underinsured motorist policy for the $750,000 deficiency between the accident expenses and the other driver’s policy limit. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim, noting “serious questions of causation” in the plaintiff’s claim and offering only a $150,000 settlement to handle the issue. After subsequent negotiations failed, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant to enforce the insurance policy.

State Court Affirms $4 Million Wrongful Death Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: September 6, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Idaho Supreme Court recently published an opinion affirming a $4 million jury verdict in a wrongful death and medical malpractice case filed by the husband of a woman who died after complications from a liposuction procedure performed by the defendant. The award, which includes over $1,250,000 in non-economic damages, was enhanced by the jury’s finding that the defendants acted recklessly in caring for the deceased woman.

Liposuction Patient Dies After Unknown Bacteria Is Introduced into Her System

The wife of the plaintiff in the case of Ballard v. Silk Touch Laser had a liposuction procedure performed by the defendant in 2010. Less than one week after the procedure, she died of septic shock from an unknown bacteria that was allegedly introduced into her system during the procedure. The plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit alleged that the defendant had negligently failed to sterilize equipment before performing the procedure and sought damages from the defendant. After a jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded a verdict totaling over $4 million. The defendant appealed the verdict to the Idaho Supreme Court.

The Defendant Challenges the Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony

On appeal, the defendant challenged the plaintiff’s use of an anesthesiologist as an expert witness to give testimony as to the appropriate standard of care that the plaintiff’s wife was entitled to receive. The appellate court found that the defendant never objected to the plaintiff’s proposed expert during the trial and could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. Although the court noted that the plaintiff’s proposed expert was legally qualified to give testimony, the defendant’s failure to object to the testimony earlier made his arguments impossible on appeal.

State Court Waives Limitations Period for Plaintiff in Underinsured Motorist Claim

Published on: August 25, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently published an opinion affirming a lower court’s ruling to allow a plaintiff’s personal injury claim to proceed against her insurance company. The defendant insurance company had argued that the underinsured motorist claim at issue was filed after the policy’s limitations period for such claims had expired and should not be permitted. The courts reasoned that the language of the underinsured motorist policy appeared to exempt such claims from the limitations period and was too ambiguous to be enforced. As a result of the recent appellate ruling, the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the defendant will proceed toward a trial.

The Plaintiff Is Injured in an Auto Accident With an Underinsured Motorist

The plaintiffs in the case of State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Jakubowicz are a woman and her two sons, who were injured in a car accident with another driver in August 2007. According to the facts and procedural case history discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman filed a personal injury case against the other driver less than two years after the accident, seeking compensation for her family’s injuries.

As the claim against the other driver proceeded, the plaintiff learned that the other driver’s insurance coverage would be insufficient to fully compensate her for the expenses and losses suffered in the accident. The plaintiff eventually added a claim against her own insurance company, seeking compensation for damages that would not otherwise be covered through her underinsured motorist coverage, although this claim was not filed until after the three-year limitations period had expired.

Filing Error Causes Medical Malpractice Complaint to Be Dismissed

Published on: August 22, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Idaho Supreme Court recently released an opinion affirming the dismissal of a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against a doctor who had not been included in the plaintiff’s lawsuit until after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s contention that the court should have used a different date to determine if the claim had been timely filed was rejected by the appellate court, and as a result the plaintiff will be unable to collect any damages for the doctor’s alleged malpractice.

The Plaintiff Suffered a Stroke as a Result of Complications During a Surgery Performed by the Defendant

The plaintiff in the case of English v. Taylor was a woman who suffered injuries from a stroke after having a surgery performed by the defendant in September 2011. In the lawsuit leading up to this appeal, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant committed medical malpractice in performing the surgery, causing her stroke and resulting injuries. In September 2013, which was within the two-year statute of limitations for such claims, the plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of a device that was used in the surgery. The plaintiff later obtained permission from the court to amend her complaint to allege medical malpractice and add the doctor as a defendant in the case, although the amended complaint was not filed or served on the defendant until after the two-year statute of limitations had expired.

Blatant Surgical Errors Remain Startlingly Common Despite Technological Advances in Medicine

Published on: August 18, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The technological advances in the medical field over the last 20 to 30 years have resulted in patients receiving improved care when treated for a variety of medical conditions and ailments. However, mistakes and errors by medical providers remain more common than many observers would believe. Although the incorporation of precision digital technology and improved medicines have benefited patients significantly, the human element of medical care leaves patients vulnerable to avoidable mistakes by medical professionals.Poorly designed information systems and over-worked, under-trained staff can result in patients receiving inapplicable, inadequate, or dangerous treatments that could have been avoided by the exercise of due care by medical professionals. If appropriate legal action is taken, patients and families who have been affected by such negligence can obtain financial compensation from the responsible parties.

Surgeons Remove Man’s Kidney Unnecessarily, Based on Physician’s Order

One type of preventable surgical mistake that can devastate patients and their families occurs when the wrong procedure is performed on a patient. In a recent article, CNN reported on such a situation that occurred at a Massachusetts hospital earlier this year. According to the news article, a physician’s order instructed surgeons to remove the patient’s kidney, and the surgery was performed successfully. Unfortunately, only after the kidney was removed did doctors discover that the patient did not need the procedure.

State Supreme Court Rules Against Woman Injured in Grocery Store Fall

Published on: August 15, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Nebraska Supreme Court recently released an opinion affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a premises liability lawsuit filed by a woman who was injured in a slip-and-fall accident while at a grocery store that was operated by the defendant. The high court agreed with the lower court’s findings that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to each of the elements of a successful premises liability or negligence claim. As a result of the state supreme court’s ruling, the plaintiff will not receive compensation for the injuries she suffered in the accident.

The Plaintiff Slipped on a Piece of Watermelon that Was Left on the Floor

The plaintiff in the case of Edwards v. Hy-Vee was injured as she was leaving the defendant’s store and slipped on what appeared to be a piece of watermelon that was on the floor. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, an employee of the defendant was handing out samples of watermelon approximately six feet from where the plaintiff fell, and the plaintiff noticed a watermelon seed on her shoe after the fall. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant in state district court, seeking compensation for her injuries and alleging that the defendant was responsible for the hazardous condition that caused her to fall, and it was liable for damages as a result.

General Motors Faces Appellate Defeat in Ignition Switch Case

Published on: August 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently released an opinion that will allow several tort claims against General Motors related to a faulty ignition switch to proceed. According to a New York Times article discussing the recent opinion, the ruling stands in the face of a 2009 bankruptcy court ruling, which prevented claims against GM from being asserted against the company that was created in the debt restructuring process. The appellate court ruled that the broad bar on future claims against the successor organization to the “old GM” did not apply to claims based on the defective ignition switches that were concealed by the previous company in anticipation of their bankruptcy restructuring.

Defective Ignition Switches in Millions of GM Vehicles Have Endangered the Public

The product liability lawsuits that have been filed against GM over the defective ignition switches allege that the manufacturer knowingly included the defective and dangerous equipment on their vehicles for years after they discovered the problem, and they even attempted to conceal evidence of their knowledge of the faulty equipment. The recall, which has now been expanded to include over 11 million vehicles in several General Motors make and model lines, is related to an issue with the ignition switch on the vehicles.

The ignitions on the affected vehicles may unexpectedly switch into the “off” position, deactivating important safety features on the vehicles, including power steering and airbags. The defective part has been linked to at least 124 deaths and 275 injuries. General Motors has already paid over $2 billion in criminal and civil penalties and settlements related to the issue, and the company expects to pay more in settlements as the plaintiff class expands with additional recalls.

Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Claim Rejected as Untimely After Transfer from Federal to State Court

Published on: August 8, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Idaho Supreme Court recently published an opinion that affirmed a state district court’s dismissal of a medical malpractice lawsuit based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the complaint within the state’s two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff in the case of English v. Taylor had initially filed a complaint within the two-year limitations period, but the claim against the defendant at issue was not filed until after the two-year period expired. On appeal, the plaintiff’s request for the court to construe the claim as filed on an earlier date was denied. As a result of the high court’s ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to collect damages for the injuries allegedly caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Complications During a Surgery Result in the Plaintiff Suffering a Stroke

According to a factual summary of the case included in the appellate opinion, the defendant performed a surgery on the plaintiff on September 17, 2011, which resulted in the plaintiff having a stroke. As a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant and others, the plaintiff suffered permanent disabilities and filed a negligence lawsuit against the manufacturer of a medical device that was used in the surgery. The plaintiff did not include the doctor as a defendant in the initial lawsuit. The plaintiff later filed a motion with the district court to amend their complaint and include the doctor as a defendant, although the amended complaint was not filed until after the two-year limitations period for medical malpractice claims in the state.

Court Permits Wrongful Death Claim to Proceed after Personal Injury Judgment Had Been Awarded Based on Defendant’s Same Negligent Conduct

Published on: August 4, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Maryland Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision allowing the family of a deceased child to pursue a wrongful death claim against a negligent medical provider who allegedly caused the death of their son. The case is unique because the son, before his death, had already collected a substantial award of damages from the defendant, based on his own personal injury claim. As a result of the most recent ruling, the parents of the child will not be prevented from pursuing their own wrongful death claim for damages, although the boy himself had already received damages based on the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Alleged Medical Mistakes Result in the Plaintiffs’ Child Being Born With Severe Disabilities

The plaintiffs in the case of Spangler v. McQuitty are the parents of a boy who was born with severe disabilities in May 1995. A personal injury lawsuit was filed on the boy’s behalf that alleged the doctor who delivered the child failed to gain the informed consent of his mother before delivering the child, which resulted in a complete placental abruption birth injury and the child’s development of severe cerebral palsy. After a jury trial on the child’s claim, he was awarded damages for his injuries, lost future wages, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses.

After the Child Dies, His Parents File a Separate Wrongful Death Action on Their Own Behalf

At some point after the personal injury case was filed, the child passed away as a result of his severe disabilities. Subsequently, his parents filed a separate cause of action against the defendant, alleging that his negligent actions proximately resulted in the premature death of their child and seeking damages to compensate them for their mental anguish and grief related to their loss. In response to the lawsuit, the defendant argued that he had already been held accountable for his act of negligence in the personal injury lawsuit that was previously decided and could not be held accountable again for the same conduct. The trial court agreed with the defendant’s arguments, causing the parents to appeal.

Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff Who Tripped and Injured Herself While Crossing the Street

Published on: August 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently released a decision reversing a lower appellate decision in favor of the governmental defendants in a negligence case filed by a woman who was injured while she was crossing a public highway operated by the defendants. The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had been negligent in failing to maintain the highway in reasonable repair in order to be safe for public travel was rejected by the lower courts, who found as a matter of law that the highway was reasonably safe. The state supreme court reversed, ruling that the plaintiff had raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the highway was unsafe, and her claim should have been heard by a jury.

The Plaintiff Is Injured After She Trips Over Uneven Concrete While Crossing a Public Highway

The plaintiff in the case of Kozak v. Lincoln Park is a woman who was injured while crossing a public highway that was operated by the defendant. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the woman tripped over a three-inch height differential between two slabs of concrete in the middle of the road and sustained injuries as a result. The woman filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city had a duty to maintain the public roads in reasonably safe condition, and the violation of that duty directly resulted in her injuries.

The Trial Court Rules in Favor of the Defendants

Before a trial was held on the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant filed a motion alleging the roadway was safe. In response to the motion, the plaintiff submitted documentary evidence to show that the road was not safe, including evidence that it had been in poor condition for over six years when the accident occurred. The defendant’s motion included the opinion testimony of the city’s Director of Public Services that the roadway was “reasonably safe.” Without considering the plaintiff’s response to the motion, the trial court decided that the roadway was reasonably safe and that the plaintiff did not sufficiently respond to the defendant’s motion, ultimately dismissing the plaintiff’s case.