Jaclyn Jones recently obtained Final Summary Judgment in favor of a Defendant hospital in a case alleging violations of Florida’s similar statute to the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), Fla. Stat. §395.1041. Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendant hospital alleging that the Plaintiff was in an emergency medical condition and not appropriately screened for such prior to discharge relative to an alleged ongoing post-operative infection after receiving hip surgery during a 10-day hospital admission in violation of Fla. Stat. §395.1041. The Court heard arguments on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and agreed that Plaintiff failed to timely provide an expert opinion in opposition to the Motion and timely disclose experts prior to the upcoming trial. Further, the expert opinion filed by Plaintiff in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, even if it had been timely filed, failed to support a claim for violation of Fla. Stat. §395.1041. Based on the evidence provided by the Defendant, the Court also found that the Defendant hospital provided sufficient medical services to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, an emergency medical screening, examination, and evaluation, in compliance with Fla. Stat. §395.1041. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, and Final Summary Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant hospital.

Jon Lynn and Cynthia Lynn obtained a defense verdict after an 8 day trial in Naples, FL. The Plaintiff, a 65 year-old woman, claimed that she had not given her voluntary informed consent for a spinal anesthetic to be used for her right knee replacement. She alleged that she had been rendered incontinent as a result of the anesthetic used. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants did not get her signature on a consent for anesthesia form that they said was required by the hospital for at least 10 years before the Plaintiff’s surgery. The Defendants claimed that there was no requirement that they obtain the patient’s signed, written consent for the administration of anesthesia and argued that their pre-anesthesia documentation included a reference to the Plaintiff’s voluntary consent to the administration of spinal anesthesia.

The Plaintiff did not argue that there was any negligence in connection with the actual administration of the spinal anesthesia. The claim was that there was a lack of consent and therefore, the spinal anesthetic should not have been used. If it was not used, they argued she would not have suffered the complication which requires her to catheterize herself 5-6 times a day. The Plaintiff’s position was that she had had a bad experience with an epidural anesthetic when she had delivered her children (30 years before her knee surgery) and testified that she had a heated argument with the Defendants during her pre-anesthesia evaluation, but ultimately gave in to the anesthesia team who insisted that she have a spinal anesthetic so that she could get her knee repaired. Neither of the Defendants (the anesthesiologist or the CRNA) nor the student nurse anesthetist who participated in the patient’s anesthetic management had an independent recollection of the surgery or the encounter with the patient which had occurred 9 years before the trial. Both the Plaintiffs’ and the Defendants’ called a series of expert witnesses to address the lack of consent, causation and damage issues in the case. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award close to two million dollars. After deliberating for 2 1/2 hours, the jury returned a total defense verdict.