Lou La Cava and David Young obtained a defense verdict for a physician assistant and emergency medicine physician in a wrongful death case in Manatee County. The Plaintiff alleged the physician assistant was negligent for not diagnosing meningitis in a 20 year old who presented with headache, fever, nausea and body aches. A diagnosis of viral syndrome was made and the patent was discharged home. The next day the patient was found unresponsive and he passed away a day later. Final diagnosis on autopsy was sepsis and meningitis. There was no testing performed in the emergency room. The physician was not consulted during the patient’s emergency room visit but later reviewed the record and agreed with the plan of care. The defense argued that an appropriate history and physical was performed in the emergency room which did not demonstrate meningitis. Further, the patient did have a viral illness while in the emergency room and he developed the bacterial infection after he left. After a 9 day case and just less than 4 hours of deliberation the jury returned a verdict finding both health care providers not negligent.

Amanda Smith, Frank Roberts, Jason Azzarone, and Lou La Cava were successful in obtaining summary judgment in Lee County based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with multiple provisions of Chapter 766, Florida Statues, governing the medical malpractice pre-suit screening requirements. Specifically, the Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to serve a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation for Medical Negligence (“NOI”) in accordance with F.S. 766.106(2)(a) and F.R.C.P. 1.650 and failed to provide evidence that the Plaintiff and/or his attorneys conducted a good faith investigation pursuant to F.S. 766.104 and provide Defendants, their attorneys, and/or insurers, with a verified written medical expert opinion from a qualified medical expert in accordance with F.S. 766.102, 766.202, and 766.203.

The Defendant further argued that Plaintiff had ample notice of the pre-suit deficiency with time to cure said deficiency, but did not do so. The Court found that neither the Defendant doctor, nor her employer were put on notice of the potential claim, nor were they named in the NOI that was sent to the co-defendant hospital. The court acknowledged the imputed notice arguments made by Plaintiff and cited in the Young v. Naples Community Hospital Inc., 129 So. 3d 456, 459–60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), but relied upon two cases cited by the Defendant, Bonati v. Allen (911 So2d 285, (2005)) and Brundage v. Evans (295 So.3d 300 (2020)), which illustrated that, pre-suit investigation requirements under Florida Statute section 766.203 demanded some specificity towards potential defendants in pre-suit, and a valid notice alone without corroboration does not suffice to meet pre-suit requirements.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in denying the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Disqualify the successor Judge assigned to the case. The Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion to Disqualify following a hearing addressing the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Despite being successful in defeating the Motion to Dismiss, the Renewed Motion to Disqualify was filed, arguing that comments made by the Judge during oral argument were improper, demonstrated bias towards the defense and supported the Plaintiffs’ belief that she would not receive a fair trial. Following the denial of the Renewed Motion to Disqualify, the Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Second District Court of Appeal, arguing that the denial was erroneous because the Judge’s comments were improper. In opposition, Mr. Azzarone argued that the comments were in no way inappropriate. Mr. Azzarone further argued that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of establishing error considering that the Plaintiff was attempting to disqualify a successor Judge. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed, denying the Petition for Writ of Prohibition.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in denying the Plaintiff’s Motions for Directed Verdict, Motion for Additur and Motion for New Trial in Santiago v. Osceola Regional Hospital, Inc., a premises liability case involving a hospital. The jury found for the Plaintiff, awarding a substantial amount for damages, and apportioned twenty percent of the fault to the hospital. At trial, the Plaintiff argued that no evidence was presented to establish that the Plaintiff was responsible for the slip and fall incident. The Trial Court denied this Motion. In his post-trial Motions, the Plaintiff argued that the amount awarded by the jury was far below the amounts requested (as supported by the evidence). The Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial argued that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Both of these Motions were denied. On appeal, Mr. Azzarone argued that conflicting evidence was presented to the jury regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to avoid the fall. Mr. Azzarone further argued that conflicting evidence was presented as to the Plaintiff’s injuries and the amounts associated with the alleged injuries. In summary, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the jury’s decision could not support his arguments for requiring a new trial. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed and entered a Per Curium Affirmance.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fourth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial in Gray v. Northwest Medical Center, Inc., et. al, a medical malpractice action involving the hospital and numerous physicians.  On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the Trial Court erred in allowing the Defendants to advise the jury of the decedent’s prior misuse of medications, in advising the jury of the decedent’s prior suicide attempt, in allowing the Defendants to argue that the decedent was comparatively at fault for his death and in failing to instruct the jury with respect to the alleged failure to follow hospital protocols.  In response, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s rulings were all proper.  Mr. Azzarone argued that the evidence of prior misuse of medications was admissible as the misuse began a cascade of conditions that ultimately led to the decedent’s death.   Mr. Azzarone further argued that the evidence of prior suicide attempts was properly admitted to rebut trial testimony meant to establish that the decedent had no personal issues, matters that were directly relevant to the damages sought by the Estate.   Regarding evidence of comparative fault, Mr. Azzarone argued that evidence linking the misuse of medications to the decedent’s death was established by expert testimony and therefore, the jury was properly instructed on this issue.  Finally, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court properly denied the Plaintiff’s requested special jury instruction regarding the failure to follow hospital protocols as the instruction was not permitted by Florida law and was unnecessary as the matter was argued by Plaintiff’s Counsel during closing arguments.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curium Affirmance.