William Carcioppolo and Brett Scroggins Obtained a Defense Verdict for an Emergency Room Physician, His Employer, and the Hospital in West Palm Beach

Brett S. ScrogginsWilliam CarcioppoloWilliam “Vito” Carcioppolo and Brett Scroggins were successful in obtaining a defense verdict for an emergency room physician, his employer, and the hospital in West Palm Beach. The plaintiff, a 60 y/o female presented to an Urgent Care facility with 8-day history of worsening headaches and hypertension, a history of migraines but hadn’t had one in years. No history of trauma or hypertension. She was told to go the hospital due to her “intractable headaches and hypertension”. Two hours later she presented to the emergency room where she was seen by the defendant physician presenting with the same history and having been referred by urgent care. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to order a CT of her brain leading to a delay in diagnosis. Six days later the plaintiff presented to a different emergency room where the history now included sudden onset severe right sided headache and the current headache feeling different then her migraines. A CT was done and revealed a 10mm subdural hematoma with mass effect and a 10mm shift. She was taken to surgery the next day and was recovering nicely until she suffered a re-bleed two days later. Plaintiffs treating neuropsychologist reported she suffers from higher level cognitive deficits, and she could no longer work as a Neonatal Nurse practitioner which she had done for years.

Plaintiff emergency medicine expert testified the standard of care required the defendant order a CT scan on a 60 y/o female who had worsening headaches and hypertension. Plaintiffs’ neurosurgery expert testified the failure to order a CT resulted in a delay in diagnosis which allowed her to continue to bleed causing increased pressure on her brain over the 6 days which he testified was the cause of her current neurocognitive deficits.

The defense emergency medicine expert testified her only complaint consistent with a SDH was her headache which was alleviated by the treatment rendered by the defendant. The standard of care did not require a CT scan be done. The defense neurosurgery expert testified her damages were the result of her re-bleed and not from the timing of the diagnosis.

Plaintiff sought a total of 6.8 million dollars in damages. After a weeklong trial the jury returned a verdict in just over two add a half hours finding no negligence.

Jonathan Ficarrotta and Tia Jones Obtained a Defense Verdict for A Hospital in Hillsborough County in a General Liability Lawsuit

Tia J. JonesJonathan FicarrottaJonathan Ficarrotta and Tia Jones obtained a Defense Verdict for a Hospital in Hillsborough County in a General Liability Lawsuit. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell while visiting the Hospital in an area that was being cleaned. As a result, she filed a lawsuit alleging that the Hospital was negligent for failing to maintain the flooring and/or warn her of a dangerous condition on the floor. Plaintiff alleged injuries to her lumbar spine which resulted in foot drop. At trial, an eyewitness to the fall testified that the Plaintiff tripped over her own two feet. Moreover, all the witnesses who responded to the scene testified that there was nothing on the ground or in the surrounding area that could have caused her to fall. The Defense called a neurosurgeon at trial who testified that Plaintiff had pre-existing lumbar conditions along with diabetic neuropathy which was the cause of her foot pain and numbness, not foot drop. The jury concluded that there was no negligence on part of the Hospital which was the legal cause of injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

Jason Azzarone Was Successful in Arguing to The Sixth District Court of Appeal in a Case Involving a Claim for Punitive Damages

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in arguing to both the Trial Court and the Sixth District Court of Appeal that the Plaintiff was not entitled to plead entitlement to punitive damages. At the Trial Court level, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Plaintiff’s proffer of evidence would not provide a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages. One of the issues argued was whether the knowledge of one of the Defendant’s managers was sufficient to impute knowledge on the Defendant corporation. Mr. Azzarone argued that the manager’s conduct did not rise to the levels required for punitive damages and further argued that his position as a mid-level manager was not the type that would result in his acts being deemed those of the corporation. Mr. Azzarone also argued that the Plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence that the corporation had knowledge of the manager’s actions and condoned said actions. The Trial Court entered an Order denying the Motion for Leave to Amend To Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages. While the Plaintiff appealed this decision, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s decision was correct. The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.

Jason Azzarone Was Successful in Arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal in a Medical Malpractice Defamation Case

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in arguing that the Trial Court erred in denying a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to comply with Florida’s Medical Malpractice Pre-Suit Screening Requirements in Halsey v. Hoffman. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the physician included an incorrect diagnosis in medical records. As the medical records were shared with other physicians, Plaintiff alleged causes of action for defamation, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Trial Court denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, holding that the claims raised did not allege medical malpractice and therefore, compliance with pre-suit was not required. Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s ruling was incorrect because the claims all arose out of the rendering of medical care. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed, granted the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quashed the Order denying the motion to dismiss.

Jason Azzarone obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a Premises Liability Case Where the Trial Court Enforced a Contractual Exculpatory Clause

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in securing a Final Summary Judgment in Collier County in a slip and fall case where the firm represented a RV Campground. Plaintiff filed her Complaint alleging negligence stemming from an incident in which she tripped and fell on a “change in elevation of the walking surface,” of Defendant’s property. Prior to her stay at the campground, the plaintiff received rules and regulations for the campground which included an exculpatory clause. The exculpatory clause stated that the plaintiff would hold the Defendant harmless from any and all liability for personal injuries. The plaintiff acknowledged that she read the rules and regulations and signed a form acknowledging her agreement to abide by them. The Trial Court held that the exculpatory clause was valid and enforceable. In doing so, the Trial Court found the clause to be clear and unambiguous.

Thomas Saieva and Lesley Stine Obtain a Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case

Lesley A. StineThomas Saieva Thomas Saieva and Lesley Stine tried a case in which it was alleged that the plaintiff sustained a perforated bowel after a laparoscopic procedure. The case involved extended care in nursing homes, and hospitals for an 11 year period. The case was supported by the testimony of excellent experts, including a GYN/Oncologist and pathologist. The defendant physician received a defense verdict. The jury concluded that the defendant physician had not perforated bowel, but rather the perforation was a result of a compromised bowel from a prior hernia repair with mesh.

David Young and Mark Messerschmidt Obtained a Defense Verdict in Manatee County on a Medical Malpractice Case

Mark MesserschmidtDavid P. Young David Young and Mark Messerschmidt obtained a defense verdict for an emergency room physician and his employer in Manatee County in a medical malpractice case after a 2-week trial. The Plaintiff presented to the hospital with reports of flashes and blurriness and disturbances in his peripheral vision of the right eye which had normalized by the time of the exam.  The patient reported a return of visual field deficits in the emergency room.  There was a significant discrepancy between the parties at that point, with Plaintiff contending that he remained blind in the right periphery from that point until the present while all of the healthcare providers contended that he reported that the vision returned to normal soon thereafter.   An ophthalmologist was consulted who concurred with the diagnosis of ocular migraine.  The patient returned 3 hours after discharge and was seen again by the same emergency room physician with the exam demonstrating right homonymous hemianopsia.

The Plaintiff alleged a delay in diagnosing the patient’s acute left occipital ischemic stroke and that such delay caused the persistent right-sided peripheral vision loss in both eyes. The survivors included the surviving spouse (claims of loss of parental consortium were removed from jury consideration by way of directed verdict). Plaintiff asked the jury to award more than 4 million dollars in damages.  After 5 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding the emergency medicine physician not negligent and a full defense verdict in his favor.

Jason Azzarone obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a Slip and Fall Premises Liability Case

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in securing a Final Summary Judgment in Marion County in a slip and fall case where the firm represented a homeowners’ association. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to maintain the outdoor common area where the alleged fall occurred. The plaintiff conceded that the incident occurred when she slipped and fell on a wet tile patio after it had become wet from a rainstorm. The plaintiff testified that because this incident occurred outside, she wouldn’t have expected anyone to dry the area during the rainstorm because the area could still get wet. Finally, the plaintiff was unaware of anyone making prior complaints about the tiles becoming slippery when wet or falling under similar conditions. The Trial Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that rainwater is not a dangerous condition which gives rise to any duty owed to the plaintiff. In doing so, the Trial Court held that the presence of rainwater is a risk recognized by reasonable persons. The Trial Court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant had notice of any dangerous condition. Finally, the Trial Court found that the Defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff to maintain the area while it was raining.

Lou La Cava Obtains a Defense Verdict for a Hospital in Marion County

Louis J. La Cava Lou La Cava obtained a defense verdict for a hospital in Marion County. This case was being handled by another firm and Lou La Cava was retained to be lead trial counsel. The Plaintiff alleged in the case that the on-call neurosurgeon was negligent in his evaluation of a patient who presented with thoracic back pain and leg weakness and numbness. MRI showed a burst fracture of the T-11 vertebrae with cord compression. The neurosurgeon recommended conservative care. The Plaintiff alleged the neurosurgeon took an inadequate history and did not perform a thorough exam. They further argued the patient required immediate neurosurgical intervention to prevent neurological damage. The Plaintiff’s condition deteriorated after her discharge from the hospital. She eventually had surgery and became an incomplete paraplegic. The plaintiff alleged the hospital was vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the on-call neurosurgeon. The defense presented evidence that the neurosurgeon’s evaluation met the standard of care and that conservative management was an appropriate choice of treatment. The defense also argued that earlier surgical intervention would not have altered the outcome. It was also the defense position that the neurosurgeon was not an employee or agent of the hospital and the hospital should not be held vicariously liable for his care and treatment of the patient if he was negligent since he was an independent contractor. After a two week trial the jury returned a verdict in two and a half hours finding that the neurosurgeon was not negligent and did not cause the damages alleged. The agency question did not have to be answered in light of the finding that there was no liability on the part of the neurosurgeon.

Jon Lynn and Lori Lewellen Obtain a Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case in Miami-Dade

Lori B. LewellenJonathon P. LynnJon Lynn and Lori Lewellen recently got a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case in Miami-Dade. The Plaintiff, a forty-five year old gentleman who had been involved in a three car rear-end automobile accident, was referred by his lawyer to the defendant, a board certified orthopedic surgeon who attended Harvard Medical School and had completed his training at the Harvard affiliated hospitals in Boston. Ultimately, the patient underwent an L4-L5 decompression and an L4 pars fracture repair and recovered nicely from his surgery. At the time of his last office visit with the patient about three months post-op, the defendant doctor documented that the patient’s pain level was 0/10, down from 10/10 pre-operatively, and he assigned the patient a 7% impairment of the body as a whole attributable to the patient’s automobile accident. Following the defendant’s care, the patient settled his auto accident case within a couple of months of his surgery. Thereafter, however, and about 10 months after his surgery, the patient developed recurrent, 10/10 low back pain and was seen at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff underwent a four-level spinal fusion, following which he developed complications and, by the time of trial, had been determined to be totally disabled. The Plaintiff’s expert, a local board certified orthopedic surgeon, testified that the procedure performed by the defendant had a “0%” chance of succeeding and he surmised that the surgery had been done solely for financial reasons. The defense expert, an orthopedic surgeon and a professor at the Yale University Medical School, testified that the defendant’s performance of the surgery was entirely appropriate and well within the applicable standard of care. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award literally millions of dollars (the medical bills and loss of earning capacity claims alone were worth a little over a million dollars) and also sought punitive damages from the defendant. The jury deliberated for about an hour after a 6-day trial before returning a defense verdict.