Patrick Wier Obtained a Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Second District Court of Appeal.

Patrick Wier Obtained a Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Second District Court of Appeal.

/in

Jason M. AzzaronePatrick D. WierPatrick Wier obtained Summary Judgment in a wrongful death case where the firm represented an agency that provided foster care for infants. At the Trial Court level, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant negligently failed to supervise the foster parents. There were also claims for negligent training. In light of the foster parents’ concession that they were properly trained and failed to follow the training, the Trial Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that there was no breach of any duty owed by the Defendant to the minor child. Additionally, the Trial Court found that there was no causal link between the Defendant’s actions and the events surrounding the infant’s death.

The Plaintiff appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Second District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant argued that the Trial Court erroneously granted the Motion for Summary Judgment because the agency owed a duty to the decedent and the intervening actions of the foster parents did not negate that duty. The Plaintiff/Appellant also argued that the agency owed a continuing duty to the infant to see that the foster parents were caring for the child properly. Finally, the Plaintiff/Appellant argued that genuine issues of fact remained regarding the training of the foster parents. Following oral argument, the Second District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curiam Affirmance.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in a case involving Amendment VII

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in a case involving Amendment VII

/in

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Sixth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court erred in overruling objections to interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. Specifically, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s order required the Defendant Hospital and Physician to respond to interrogatories that requested information regarding credentialing and medical review committee or board investigations on the basis that the information was discoverable pursuant to Article 10, Section 25 of the Florida Constitution, which is commonly known as Amendment VII. On Certiorari, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s Order overruling the objections departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring the Hospital and Physician to provide information that was protected by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5). In quashing the Order under review, the Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed that the plain language of Amendment VII did not apply to interrogatories. The Sixth District Court of Appeal also agreed with the argument that the information was statutorily immune from discovery.

La Cava Jacobson & Goodis and Attorneys Ranked by Chambers and Partners USA Guide 2024

La Cava Jacobson & Goodis Recognized in Chambers and Partners 2024 Rankings

/in

Tampa, FL – June 2024 – La Cava Jacobson & Goodis is proud to announce that it has been recognized in the Chambers and Partners 2024 rankings, highlighting the firm’s exceptional legal expertise and dedication to client service. This prestigious acknowledgment underscores the firm’s commitment to excellence across multiple practice areas.

Chambers and Partners has ranked La Cava Jacobson & Goodis for its outstanding work in Litigation: Medical Malpractice Defense. In addition to recognizing the firm, Chambers and Partners has awarded Band 1 ranking to Louis J. La Cava and Jeffrey M. Goodis, and Band 2 ranking to David J. Nelson. These accolades reflect the firm’s deep expertise and successful track record in defending its clients across complex medical malpractice cases.

“We are honored to be recognized by Chambers and Partners,” said Louis J. La Cava, founding shareholder of the firm. “This acknowledgment is a testament to our firm’s hard work, dedication, and unwavering commitment to delivering top-tier legal services to our clients.” Commenting on the ranking, Jeffrey M. Goodis, Shareholder, shared “This ranking highlights the firm’s continued focus on delivering exceptional legal services and achieving the best possible outcomes for our clients.”

La Cava Jacobson & Goodis, with its AV Preeminent rating, continues to lead in the field of litigation defense, particularly in medical malpractice defense, offering litigation and appellate services throughout Florida. With over 45 attorneys across 7 offices, the firm combines extensive resources with personalized attention to effectively meet the needs of its clients.

For more information about La Cava Jacobson & Goodis and their Chambers and Partners ranking, visit La Cava Jacobson & Goodis and Chambers and Partners.

Tia Jones Obtained a Dismissal for Fraud Upon the Court. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Second District Court of Appeal

Tia Jones Obtained a Dismissal for Fraud Upon the Court. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Second District Court of Appeal.

/in

Jason M. AzzaroneTia J. JonesTia Jones successfully argued to the Trial Court that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for Fraud Upon the Court where the firm represented the owner of an apartment complex. The Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell while walking through her apartment after advising the Defendant of a water leak. Over the course of discovery, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff had numerous back surgeries ranging over a decade which were not disclosed. The Defendant also learned that the Plaintiff had sought disability benefits for the exact injuries she was alleging stem from the slip and fall. The Trial Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court, finding that the Plaintiff was not truthful in her discovery responses.

The Plaintiff appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Second District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant argued that the Trial Court erroneously granted the Motion to Dismiss because the issue of the Plaintiff’s past medical care went to her credibility which the jury should determine. Plaintiff/Appellant also argued that the Plaintiff did not intentionally misrepresent her past medical condition. Following oral argument, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curiam Affirmance.

Patrick Wier Obtained a Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Patrick Wier Obtained a Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

/in

Jason M. AzzaronePatrick D. WierPatrick Wier was successful in arguing that Summary Judgment was appropriate in a case where the Plaintiff asserted wrongful death stemming from a suicide. Mr. Wier represented physicians who treated the decedent prior to his suicide. The Plaintiff asserted that the physicians should not have released decedent from the hospital without conducting a psychiatric evaluation. At Summary Judgment, Mr. Wier argued that a psychiatric evaluation was performed and further argued that the ultimate death of the decedent did not stem from any alleged medical negligence which occurred over a month later. Mr. Wier also argued that there was no duty to involuntarily commit the decedent. Finally, Mr. Wier argued that the Plaintiff’s expert could not opine that any of the Defendant’s actions caused the decedent’s death without the use of speculation. The Trial Court agreed and entered an Order granting Final Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant argued that the Trial Court erroneously granted the Motion for Summary Judgment because the physicians owed a duty to the decedent. The Plaintiff/Appellant also argued that genuine issues of material fact existed, precluding summary judgment. Following oral argument, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curiam Affirmance.