Firm Results

Jaclyn Jones recently obtained Final Summary Judgment in favor of a Defendant hospital in a case alleging violations of Florida’s similar statute to the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), Fla. Stat. §395.1041. Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendant hospital alleging that the Plaintiff was in an emergency medical condition and not appropriately screened for such prior to discharge relative to an alleged ongoing post-operative infection after receiving hip surgery during a 10-day hospital admission in violation of Fla. Stat. §395.1041. The Court heard arguments on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and agreed that Plaintiff failed to timely provide an expert opinion in opposition to the Motion and timely disclose experts prior to the upcoming trial. Further, the expert opinion filed by Plaintiff in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, even if it had been timely filed, failed to support a claim for violation of Fla. Stat. §395.1041. Based on the evidence provided by the Defendant, the Court also found that the Defendant hospital provided sufficient medical services to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, an emergency medical screening, examination, and evaluation, in compliance with Fla. Stat. §395.1041. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, and Final Summary Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant hospital.

Jon Lynn and Cynthia Lynn obtained a defense verdict after an 8 day trial in Naples, FL. The Plaintiff, a 65 year-old woman, claimed that she had not given her voluntary informed consent for a spinal anesthetic to be used for her right knee replacement. She alleged that she had been rendered incontinent as a result of the anesthetic used. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants did not get her signature on a consent for anesthesia form that they said was required by the hospital for at least 10 years before the Plaintiff’s surgery. The Defendants claimed that there was no requirement that they obtain the patient’s signed, written consent for the administration of anesthesia and argued that their pre-anesthesia documentation included a reference to the Plaintiff’s voluntary consent to the administration of spinal anesthesia.

The Plaintiff did not argue that there was any negligence in connection with the actual administration of the spinal anesthesia. The claim was that there was a lack of consent and therefore, the spinal anesthetic should not have been used. If it was not used, they argued she would not have suffered the complication which requires her to catheterize herself 5-6 times a day. The Plaintiff’s position was that she had had a bad experience with an epidural anesthetic when she had delivered her children (30 years before her knee surgery) and testified that she had a heated argument with the Defendants during her pre-anesthesia evaluation, but ultimately gave in to the anesthesia team who insisted that she have a spinal anesthetic so that she could get her knee repaired. Neither of the Defendants (the anesthesiologist or the CRNA) nor the student nurse anesthetist who participated in the patient’s anesthetic management had an independent recollection of the surgery or the encounter with the patient which had occurred 9 years before the trial. Both the Plaintiffs’ and the Defendants’ called a series of expert witnesses to address the lack of consent, causation and damage issues in the case. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award close to two million dollars. After deliberating for 2 1/2 hours, the jury returned a total defense verdict.

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.