William “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.

Jason 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 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.

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.

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.