Medical Malpractice

Florida Mother Fights to Change Wrongful Death Rules

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

Linda Porter’s son, Pete Thomas, died 12 years ago in a New Port Richey hospital. Now Porter goes to rock concerts and imagines her long-haired guitarist son with her in the audience. This April, Pete would have been 50 years old.

In October 2014, the 38-year-old was admitted to the Morton Plant North Bay Hospital with abdominal pain. Less than 24 hours had passed before he went into respiratory arrest and was put on a ventilator. He died roughly six weeks later. Porter believes the hospital caused Pete’s death by over-medicating him.

Florida Appeals Court Holds Post-Trial Interest Accrues from Date of Judgment, Not Verdict

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

A Florida appellate court recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that when the amount of the judgment in a tort case is modified on appeal, post-trial interest must accrue from the date of the verdict rather than from the date of the original judgment. The court reasoned that the earlier accrual date in such circumstances unjustly punishes the losing party.In the fall of 2011, a jury rendered a verdict of roughly $7.5 million in a wrongful death lawsuit, finding appellate Shoemaker 40 percent at fault for decedent Stephen Sliger’s death. Following the verdict, Shoemaker and his co-defendants filed a motion to cap non-economic damages according to section 766.118(2) of Florida Statutes. They argued that under 766.118, the non-economic damages should be capped at $500,000. Sonia Sliger, the representative of Stephen Sliger’s estate, responded that section 766.118’s damages limitation violated the Florida and U.S. constitutions.

Florida Appellate Court Holds Damage Caps Unconstitutional in Medical Malpractice Suit

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

The Florida Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held that a Palm Beach County trial court erred in applying statutory caps to the noneconomic damages award in a medical malpractice case.Appellant Dr. Jeanne Go and a colleague were sued for medical malpractice resulting from their treatment of Dens Pierre, which caused permanent brain injury to the child. A jury found Dr. Go 75% liable and awarded Pierre and his mother roughly $28.5 million in damages. However, the reward was reduced pursuant to section 766.118(2) of the Florida Statutes. Dr. Go appealed, and Pierre and his mother cross-appealed. The appellate court rejected Dr. Go’s arguments on appeal and reversed with respect to the trial court’s reduction of damages.

Appellate Court Overturns Summary Judgment in Bad-Faith Insurance Case Stemming From Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

Published on: December 18, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has found that a bad-faith medical malpractice insurance case should go to trial. In Samiian v. First Professionals Insurance Co., a doctor performed plastic surgery on a patient who remained at his clinic following the procedure. After visiting with the patient at the end of the day, the physician apparently left the man in the care of a surgical technician. The technician reportedly administered intravenous medication to the patient before the patient unexpectedly suffered a fatal heart attack. On the following day, the doctor notified his medical malpractice insurance carrier regarding the potential for a future lawsuit.

Soon afterward, the deceased patient’s estate filed a notice of its intent to file a lawsuit against the physician, pursuant to Section 766.106(2) of the Florida Statutes. The doctor’s insurer then retained an attorney to represent him. Following an investigation into the matter, the company decided to tender a settlement check for the doctor’s full insurance policy limits of $250,000 to the deceased patient’s personal representative. Two days after the check was delivered, the lawyer who was retained by the insurer offered to submit the matter of economic damages to binding arbitration. In his letter, the attorney stated the insurance company was not amending its offer to settle the case for the full medical malpractice policy limits. Despite this, the arbitration offer was not contingent upon a damages limit. After the estate accepted the offer to arbitrate, a panel of neutral arbitrators issued an award of over $35 million in favor of the deceased patient’s estate. The arbitral award plus interest was later confirmed by a Florida court and also upheld on appeal.

Middle District of Florida Holds Medical Malpractice Case Against Federally Supported Hospital Must Comply With Notice Provisions in the FTCA

Published on: October 8, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Rodriguez v. Heart of Florida Health Center, Inc., the estate of a deceased woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against a hospital and a doctor in Marion County, Florida. According to the complaint, the woman’s cancer diagnosis was seriously delayed as a result of the physician’s negligence. As a result, the estate sought damages for the decedent’s pain, suffering, disability, emotional anguish, medical expenses, and more. After the lawsuit was filed, the defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Florida based on diversity of citizenship.

Next, the United States filed a motion to substitute the government as the defendant in the case. According to the U.S., the hospital and the doctor in her capacity as an employee were immune from suit because the facility enjoyed federal support. The U.S. also filed a motion to dismiss the medical malpractice lawsuit, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its motion to dismiss, the government argued the estate’s only remedy was a case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The U.S. also asserted that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the estate failed to exhaust all administrative remedies as required by the statute.

Negligence Lawsuit Over Florida Psychiatric Patient’s Death Must Comply With Pre-Suit Notice Requirements Enumerated in Medical Malpractice Reform Act

Published on: September 4, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Estate of Lawson, a woman with a history of mental illness was admitted to a hospital’s locked psychiatric unit in 2013. Unfortunately, the woman somehow got access to a facility worker’s keys and escaped the building. After that, the woman ran onto a nearby highway and was struck by a vehicle. Sadly, the woman died as a result of her injuries.

Following the woman’s death, her estate filed an ordinary negligence lawsuit against the hospital in a Florida court. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss the case and asserted that the estate’s lawsuit was actually a medical negligence complaint. According to the medical facility, the estate’s case was subject to dismissal because it failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements enumerated in Chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the hospital’s motion, and the facility sought a writ of certiorari to quash the lower court’s order from Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.

Equitable Subrogation Question Certified to Florida Supreme Court in Personal Injury Case

Published on: August 3, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Allstate Insurance Company v. Theodotou, a young man suffered head trauma and other injuries when he was struck by a motorist while riding his scooter in Florida. Following the collision, the boy was treated at a local hospital. Unfortunately, his injuries were apparently made worse as a result of medical negligence.

Not long after the accident, the young man’s guardian sued the motorist who struck him as well as the owner of the vehicle. At trial, the defendants were precluded from presenting evidence that the young man’s condition was made significantly worse due to negligent medical care in accordance with prior Florida precedent. Ultimately, the defendants were ordered to pay the young man more than $11 million. After that, the driver’s auto insurer paid the boy’s guardian the full accident policy limits of $1.1 million.

Appeals Court Finds Medical Malpractice Pre-Suit Notice Statutes Do Not Violate Florida Constitution

Published on: July 31, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Weaver v. Myers, a Florida woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against a physician following the death of a loved one without first complying with the pre-suit notice requirements enumerated in Sections 766.106 and 766.1065 of the Florida Statutes. According to the woman, certain 2013 amendments to the law violated the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the Florida Constitution. After both parties filed a motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that the amendments at issue were constitutional and were not preempted by the federal law.

Next, the woman filed an appeal with Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. In support of her case, the woman argued the amendments were not valid because they violated the separation of powers doctrine, violated a special legislation limitation imposed by the Florida Constitution, impermissibly burdened her access to the courts, and violated the deceased patient’s right to privacy. The woman also claimed the law was preempted by the HIPAA statute.

Appellate Court Affirms Legal Fees Award for Plaintiffs in Florida Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: January 19, 2015 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In Duong v. Ziadie, a woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of her incapacitated son against his doctor, the practice where the doctor was employed, and other defendants. According to the woman’s complaint, the physician’s negligent care caused her son to become permanently paralyzed. In her lawsuit, the mother sought damages related to her son’s medical bills, pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity. She also asked the court to award his minor children financial compensation for their loss of parental services and other damages.

Prior to trial, the mother submitted a formal proposal for the settlement of each person’s claim to the allegedly negligent physician. The woman also stated she would seek sanctions against the doctor if he refused the offer and a jury issued an award against him for at least 25 percent more than her $1 million proposal. The man’s doctor refused to settle the case, and the lawsuit proceeded to trial. After reviewing the evidence, jurors issued an award of approximately $10 million in favor of the plaintiffs. In addition, the jury found that the physician was 75 percent responsible for the incapacitated man’s harm. The jurors also determined that another doctor was 25 percent at fault.

Appellate Court Rules Negligence Case Against Hospital is Not Subject to Florida Medical Malpractice Act

Published on: December 24, 2014 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Florida’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has refused to grant a hospital’s petition for a writ of certiorari. In Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Dumigan, a man was apparently injured by a drug that was used on him during a surgical procedure even though it was previously recalled. As a result of the hospital’s alleged failure to dispose of the recalled drug, the man and his wife filed a negligence and products liability action against the medical facility where his surgery was performed. After a trial court refused to grant the hospital’s motion to dismiss the case, the hospital asked Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal to review the lower court’s order.

According to the hospital’s petition for a writ of certiorari, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was inappropriately characterized as a products liability and negligence action. The medical facility claimed that the statutory presuit notice requirements enumerated in the Florida Medical Malpractice Act (“FMMA”) instead applied to the case. Since the plaintiffs failed to comply with the FMMA’s notice requirements, the hospital argued that the trial court should have dismissed the case.