Firm Results

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Sixth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court erred in overruling objections to interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. Specifically, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s order required the Defendant Hospital and Physician to respond to interrogatories that requested information regarding credentialing and medical review committee or board investigations on the basis that the information was discoverable pursuant to Article 10, Section 25 of the Florida Constitution, which is commonly known as Amendment VII. On Certiorari, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s Order overruling the objections departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring the Hospital and Physician to provide information that was protected by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5). In quashing the Order under review, the Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed that the plain language of Amendment VII did not apply to interrogatories. The Sixth District Court of Appeal also agreed with the argument that the information was statutorily immune from discovery.

Patrick Wier was successful in arguing that Summary Judgment was appropriate in a case where the Plaintiff asserted wrongful death stemming from a suicide. Mr. Wier represented physicians who treated the decedent prior to his suicide. The Plaintiff asserted that the physicians should not have released decedent from the hospital without conducting a psychiatric evaluation. At Summary Judgment, Mr. Wier argued that a psychiatric evaluation was performed and further argued that the ultimate death of the decedent did not stem from any alleged medical negligence which occurred over a month later. Mr. Wier also argued that there was no duty to involuntarily commit the decedent. Finally, Mr. Wier argued that the Plaintiff’s expert could not opine that any of the Defendant’s actions caused the decedent’s death without the use of speculation. The Trial Court agreed and entered an Order granting Final Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant argued that the Trial Court erroneously granted the Motion for Summary Judgment because the physicians owed a duty to the decedent. The Plaintiff/Appellant also argued that genuine issues of material fact existed, precluding summary judgment. Following oral argument, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curiam Affirmance.

Lou La Cava and Justine Adamski obtained a defense verdict in a two week medical malpractice wrongful death case tried in Pinellas County. The Plaintiff, who was 63 years old at the time, died within 26 hours after being discharged by the defendant hospitalist. He was survived by his wife and daughter. The patient came into the ER after having two episodes of shortness of breath and chest tightness the night before and the day of the visit. ER did an EKG which showed a left axis deviation and was called abnormal. A second EKG was normal. They worked him up as a cardiac patient. Troponins were normal. Chest x-ray was normal and D-Dimer was normal. ER physician’s assistant asked that the patient be admitted. The defendant admitted him for observation rather than as an in patient. The patient gave a history of asthma and took Advair for that. He had hypertension and diabetes. The defendant ordered an exercise and nuclear stress test to be performed the next morning. It was performed by a nuclear medicine physician. It was read as normal with the patient going about 7 minutes before needing the test stopped for fatigue and shortness of breath. The patient had two additional episodes of SOB in the hospital that appeared to be relieved by his asthma medicine. After the stress test the defendant discharged him but did not write a note and did not document a physical exam. He did not dictate his discharge summary until the next day after the patient had passed away. The patient was given a prescription for Albuterol to use as a rescue inhaler if he became SOB. The discharge diagnosis was reactive airway disease. It was recommended that he see his PCP in a week and have out patient pulmonary function tests done. He was told to do activities as tolerated. He went home and was apparently fine that day. He did not get the prescription for albuterol filled. The next day he was apparently fine in the morning but toward noon he began having either SOB or chest pain. He asked his wife to pick up the prescription. He went up to lie down and when the wife returned he had passed away. This was approximately 26 hours after he left the hospital. On autopsy he have left ventricular hypertrophy and moderate to severe COPD and emphysema. He apparently died from an arrythmia.

Plaintiff claimed he needed cardiac and pulmonary consults. Cardiologist would have ordered an echocardiogram which would have diagnosed LVH. A pulmonologist they claimed would have done pulmonary function studies which would have diagnosed his lung disease. If this was done plaintiff alleged he would have been put on alternative lung medication because the one he was on can increase the likelihood of an arrythmia. He would have also been given an oral steroid. A cardiologist would have adjusted his blood pressure meds to try to reverse his LVH. He would have been placed on bed rest and would have survived. Plaintiff had 4 expert witnesses testify. Plaintiff alleged his death was caused by another pulmonary SOB episode that led to the arrythmia.

The defense was that prospectively there was no need for the consultations. From a cardiac standpoint the work up was negative including an ejection fraction of 63. Even though he may have had LVH it was not causing left ventricular dysfunction. Therefore, the echocardiogram was not indicated. A pulmonologist was not needed because his pulmonary problem was not severe or continuous. It was episodic and responded to treatment. He did not need oral steroids for the same reason. The defense experts opined he died purely of a cardiac sudden death and there was nothing that could have been done in the hospital to prevent the death. PFTs can be done as an outpatient and even if done in the hospital would not have changed the treatment. The defense argued that when judged prospectively the care was well within the standard of care.

The jury deliberated approximately one hour and returned a verdict for the defense.

Plaintiff filed a suit claiming personal injuries stemming from a premises liability claim against the owner of the property (Defendant). Plaintiff claimed he slipped and fell causing permanent injuries which included a wrist fracture, spinal injuries, and a traumatic brain injury. The incident was captured on the property owner’s surveillance footage. Defendant objected to the video’s production in discovery before the Plaintiff was deposed so as to not allow the Plaintiff to alter his testimony in line with the footage. Plaintiff’s testimony sharply contradicted the footage which revealed the Plaintiff was liable for his own claimed injuries. As a result of the glaring contradiction between the deposition testimony and surveillance footage, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (based on the newly implemented summary judgment standards), Motion to Dismiss for Fraud, as well as serving the Plaintiff and his attorney a Motion for 57.105 Sanctions and the required Safe Harbor Letter. As a result, the Plaintiff filed a Voluntary Dismissal to avoid the imposition of sanctions.