Firm Results

First District Court of Appeal Florida

Jason Azzarone Was Successful in Arguing to The First District Court of Appeal

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the First District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court was correct in dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint in a medical malpractice action brought against a hospital for the actions of its nursing staff. Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s dismissal was proper because the Plaintiff’s pre-suit expert, and out of state physician, was statutorily unqualified to render opinions regarding the actions of the nurses. As the Plaintiff was time barred from curing this defect, the matter was dismissed with prejudice. The First District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curium Affirmance.

Mandy Smith, Frank Roberts, Jay Azzarone, and Lou La Cava Obtain Summary Judgment Win in Medical Malpractice Case

Amanda Smith, Frank Roberts, Jason Azzarone, and Lou La CavaAmanda 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.

Defense Verdict

Lou La Cava and Janett Durkee Obtain A Defense Verdict In A Wrongful Death Case

Janet DurkeeLouis J. La CavaLou La Cava and Janet Durkee obtained a defense verdict for a hospitalist in a wrongful death case in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff was a 62 year old female who fell down a flight of stairs and broke 5 ribs. She was intoxicated. She was evaluated in the emergency room and admitted to the hospital for observation. She was evaluated by the hospitalist in the morning and appeared stable. During the day she complained of pain, nausea and in the evening anxiety. Her blood pressure started getting lower. In the early morning hours she was found non responsive and she was unable to be resuscitated. On autopsy she was found to have additional rib fractures, a lacerated intercostal vessel and 2,000 ccs of blood in her right pleural space. Plaintiff alleged the hospitalist was negligent by not consulting a surgeon, failing to perform coagulation studies, failing to perform serial x-rays, failing to order a chest CT and failing to see the patient again during the day based on her complaints of pain, nausea and anxiety. After a 8 day trial the jury returned a verdict finding that the hospitalist defendant was not negligent and did not cause the decedent’s death.

Second District Court of Appeal Florida

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal

Jason M. AzzaroneJason 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.

Medical Malpractice Case

Jonathon Lynn and Mandy Smith Obtain Defense Verdict in Collier County

Jonathon P. Lynn

Jonathon Lynn and Mandy Smith obtained a defense verdict after a six-day trial in Collier County. The Plaintiff, who had undergone a colonoscopy, vomited and aspirated immediately after his procedure while under the care of the CRNA and anesthesiologist. The Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of both the CRNA and anesthesiologist in not preventing the aspiration. As a result of the aspiration, the patient was diagnosed with dysautonomia, a rare complication, and sought treatment from his Harvard–affiliated pulmonologist who testified at the time of trial. The pulmonologist had developed a life care plan for the Plaintiff that was expected to cost about $3,500,000.00 over the Plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy. In his closing argument, the Plaintiff asked the jury to award $4,000,000.00 in non-economic damages in addition to the economic damages. The jury deliberated 3 1/2 hours and returned a verdict for the Defendants finding they were not negligent in their care and treatment of the Plaintiff.

Fifth District Court of Appeal Florida

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal

Jason M. AzzaroneJason 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 and Thomas Saieva Obtain a Dismissal With Prejudice In An Inmate Civil Rights Case

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone and Thomas Saieva were successful in securing a dismissal of the Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice in a civil rights case filed by an inmate in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, in which the firm represented multiple physicians who provided medical care to Lake County inmates.

The Plaintiff alleged that he received cursory medical care following an altercation with another inmate and that the physicians neglected his condition in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment Rights. The motion to dismiss argued that based on the allegations, the Plaintiff could not establish any claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition as required by Federal law because, as alleged, the Plaintiff received medical care. The Court agreed, finding that the Plaintiff could not demonstrate deliberate indifference and therefore, the matter was to be dismissed with prejudice.

Thomas Saieva
View Court Document

Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal

Jason Azzarone Was Successful in Arguing to the Fourth District Court of Appeal

Jason M. AzzaroneJason 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.

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Jason Azzarone Secures Summary Judgment In An Inmate Civil Rights Case

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in securing a summary judgment in a civil rights case filed by an inmate in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, in which the firm represented multiple physicians who provided medical care to Hillsborough County inmates. The Plaintiff alleged that he was denied medical care and that the physician neglected his condition in violation of his Eighth Amendment Rights. The motion filed argued that based on the medical records, the Plaintiff could not establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition as required by Federal law. The Court agreed, finding that the Plaintiff could not demonstrate deliberate indifference and therefore, there were no genuine issues of material fact to present to the jury.

View Court Order

Second District Court of Appeal Florida

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in granting the Defendant’s renewed Motion for Directed Verdict in Shelatz v. Punta Gorda HMA, LLC, a premises liability case involving a hospital.  The jury found for the Plaintiff and apportioned ten percent of the fault to the hospital.  In its post-trial renewed Motion for Directed Verdict, Defendant argued that no evidence was presented establishing that a duty was owed by the Hospital to the Plaintiff.  The Trial Court agreed and on appeal, the Appellant argued that the Trial Court’s decision was in error.  In response, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court correctly  recognized that evidence was presented establishing that the Plaintiff failed to comply with his contractual obligations to ensure the existence of a safe workplace.  Mr. Azzarone also argued that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged hazard and failed to act reasonably to protect himself from the very incident that caused his damages.  The Second District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curium Affirmance.