Firm Results

Lou La Cava was successful in getting a Department of Health administrative complaint against a doctor dismissed. The case was sent to him from another firm who responded to the Florida Department of Health Administrative investigation letter asking that the case be dismissed. Unfortunately, probable cause was found and an administrative complaint against the doctor was filed. A formal hearing was requested. Lou took the deposition of the expert for the Florida Department of Health Administrative and was able to get some major concessions which significantly damaged the State’s case. Lou’s client and the expert he retained did an excellent job at their depositions. After discovery was completed, the Florida Department of Health Administrative attorney agreed to resubmit the case to the probable cause panel with a recommendation it be dismissed. The probable cause panel reconsidered its previous finding and issued a dismissal of the case.

Jeffrey Goodis and Jaclyn Jones obtained a defense verdict for a Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician in a medical malpractice case in Hillsborough County. Plaintiffs alleged that the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician acted with reckless disregard by failing to timely and appropriately intubate an 18-year-old patient, who arrived at the hospital with a swelling throat due to a rare hereditary condition, which resulted in the patient’s death almost a week later. Plaintiffs alleged that the patient was intubated by anesthesia in the ER, within roughly 45 minutes after arrival at the hospital, and that our client should not have waited for anesthesia, but rather, intubated herself, and sooner. Shortly after intubation, the endotracheal tube became dislodged, and the patient was reintubated during CPR. The Plaintiffs in the case, the patient’s parents, sued for wrongful death damages, requesting $40 Million Dollars from the physician, and her employer and the hospital for vicarious liability of the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician’s alleged reckless disregard.

At trial, the defense presented evidence that the physician acted quickly and appropriately in her care and treatment of the patient. In triage, the patient could not talk and his only communication with the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician was a few short letters typed out on is phone, an acronym for his hereditary condition. She called for anesthesia to assist with intubation of the difficult airway and was about to intubate herself when anesthesia walked in and quickly intubated on the first attempt. Our retained Pediatric Emergency Medicine expert testified that the intubation not only occurred quickly, but likely 7 minutes after the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician first saw the patient in triage. Further, the defense established that an endotracheal tube becoming dislodged is a known complication and likely occurred shortly after a chest x-ray confirmed appropriate endotracheal tube depth. The patient’s oxygen saturations and HR started dropping after the x-ray, and the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician recognized the issue and heroically started CPR. The patient was reintubated during CPR and there was a return of spontaneous circulation shortly thereafter. The defense expert testified that the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician did not act with reckless disregard.

Three (3) months prior to the patient’s presentation to the ER, he had stopped taking the medication prescribed for his hereditary condition, which historically prevented laryngeal swelling. The defense established that the decedent likely waited hours or even a day, after onset of symptoms, before coming to the hospital after the episode began. The defense expert established that the failure to take his medications was the cause of his death.

After a short deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants having found that the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician did not act with reckless disregard in her care and treatment of the patient. After rejecting reasonable offers of settlement, the plaintiffs were not awarded any monies by the jurors.

Andrew Hudson recently prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice Complaint against healthcare Defendants without serving a Notice of Intent and accordingly did not participate in pre-suit as required by Florida Statue 766. Following arguments by all parties, the Judge ruled in favor of the Defense and found that the subsequent serving of a notice of intent could not be curative because the statute of limitations had run and accordingly the ruling was with prejudice.

Kelly Neufville obtained Summary Judgment in a personal injury case where the firm represented an equestrian center that offers many services, including guided horseback trail rides. In this case, the Plaintiff’s horse would not traverse a puddle on the trail, so the equestrian center’s guide instructed the Plaintiff to go around the puddle, off trail, and ultimately to dismount the horse when it got stuck in muddy terrain. The Plaintiff argued that she was reliant on instruction from the guide as to how to safely participate in equine activities and that the Defendant’s trail guide negligently instructed a novice rider to dismount a horse, resulting in injury. The Trial Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the defendant was entitled to statutory immunity from liability under Florida Statute 773.02 and that no exception existed under Florida Statute 773.03.

Tia Jones successfully argued to the Trial Court that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for Fraud Upon the Court where the firm represented the owner of an apartment complex. The Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell while walking through her apartment after advising the Defendant of a water leak. Over the course of discovery, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff had numerous back surgeries ranging over a decade which were not disclosed. The Defendant also learned that the Plaintiff had sought disability benefits for the exact injuries she was alleging stem from the slip and fall. The Trial Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court, finding that the Plaintiff was not truthful in her discovery responses.

The Plaintiff appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Second District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant argued that the Trial Court erroneously granted the Motion to Dismiss because the issue of the Plaintiff’s past medical care went to her credibility which the jury should determine. Plaintiff/Appellant also argued that the Plaintiff did not intentionally misrepresent her past medical condition. Following oral argument, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curiam Affirmance.