Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court erred in compelling the Defendant to produce documents in Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., v. Feller, 163 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). In its order, the Trial Court overruled the Defendant’s objections that the materials were protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. The Trial Court also held that the attorney-client privilege had been waived. The Fifth District Court of Appeal disagreed. Finding certiorari relief to be appropriate, the Court reversed, opining that the subject documents could still be protected work product even though they were prepared in a different case. The Court further found that the Trial Court erred in finding the attorney-client privilege inapplicable without conducting an in camera inspection. Finally, the Court disagreed with the Trial Court, finding that the attorney-client privilege was not waived by counsel’s statements or by the filing of a privilege log that the trial court viewed as containing insufficient detail.

Kari Jacobson and Jonathan Ficarrotta obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, an independent living/assisted living facility, was negligent in failing to maintain its premises in a safe condition resulting in a closet door falling onto Plaintiff. The jury found that the Defendant breached no duty to Plaintiff.

Lou La Cava and Iva Valtcheva were counsel in a medical malpractice trial in Hillsborough County which resulted in a hung jury. The Plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic cyst drainage which resulted in an undiagnosed small bowel injury. She became septic and went on to undergo amputations of all four of her extremities. Plaintiff alleged negligence in causing the perforation and not making an earlier diagnosis of sepsis. After a 3 week trial the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Lou La Cava and Iva Valtcheva obtained a defense verdict in a case tried in Pasco County. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant radiologist was negligent in his interpretation of a screening mammogram. The patient had previous mammograms showing a nodule that was considered to be benign. The defendant identified the nodule as being stable. The Plaintiff alleged the nodule had changed from the previous mammograms. A year later the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer. On behalf of the defendant it was argued that the mammogram was appropriately interpreted when compared to the previous studies and that even assuming a delay in diagnosis, the treatment and prognosis for the patient would not have changed. After a one week trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the trial court did not err in granting a motion to compel arbitration in a medical malpractice lawsuit in Santiago v. Baker, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 1396594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). On appeal, the Appellants argued that the arbitration agreement before the Court violated Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act, Chapter 766, Fla. Stat. (2011). Specifically, Appellants argued that the agreement violated Florida’s public policy and, based on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Franks v. Bowers, 116 So.3d 1240 (Fla.2013), the Medical Malpractice Act required the resolution of all malpractice claims through statutory voluntary binding arbitration or trial. Mr. Azzarone argued that the Florida Supreme Court, in its decision, did not negate the ability of parties to enter into arbitration agreements in medical malpractice cases, provided that the rights afforded to the parties in the Medical Malpractice Act were not negated by the terms of the arbitration agreement. As none of the rights afforded to the Appellants in the Medical Malpractice Act were negated by the arbitration agreement before the Court, Mr. Azzarone argued that the trial court’s order should be affirmed. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the arbitration agreement was not void as against public policy. The Court also opined that nothing in the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion precluded private binding arbitration agreements under Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act.

View Court Document