Firm Results

Jason Azzarone was successful in securing a Final Summary Judgment in Marion County in a slip and fall case where the firm represented a homeowners’ association. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to maintain the outdoor common area where the alleged fall occurred. The plaintiff conceded that the incident occurred when she slipped and fell on a wet tile patio after it had become wet from a rainstorm. The plaintiff testified that because this incident occurred outside, she wouldn’t have expected anyone to dry the area during the rainstorm because the area could still get wet. Finally, the plaintiff was unaware of anyone making prior complaints about the tiles becoming slippery when wet or falling under similar conditions. The Trial Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that rainwater is not a dangerous condition which gives rise to any duty owed to the plaintiff. In doing so, the Trial Court held that the presence of rainwater is a risk recognized by reasonable persons. The Trial Court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant had notice of any dangerous condition. Finally, the Trial Court found that the Defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff to maintain the area while it was raining.

Jon Lynn and Lori Lewellen recently got a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case in Miami-Dade. The Plaintiff, a forty-five year old gentleman who had been involved in a three car rear-end automobile accident, was referred by his lawyer to the defendant, a board certified orthopedic surgeon who attended Harvard Medical School and had completed his training at the Harvard affiliated hospitals in Boston. Ultimately, the patient underwent an L4-L5 decompression and an L4 pars fracture repair and recovered nicely from his surgery. At the time of his last office visit with the patient about three months post-op, the defendant doctor documented that the patient’s pain level was 0/10, down from 10/10 pre-operatively, and he assigned the patient a 7% impairment of the body as a whole attributable to the patient’s automobile accident. Following the defendant’s care, the patient settled his auto accident case within a couple of months of his surgery. Thereafter, however, and about 10 months after his surgery, the patient developed recurrent, 10/10 low back pain and was seen at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff underwent a four-level spinal fusion, following which he developed complications and, by the time of trial, had been determined to be totally disabled. The Plaintiff’s expert, a local board certified orthopedic surgeon, testified that the procedure performed by the defendant had a “0%” chance of succeeding and he surmised that the surgery had been done solely for financial reasons. The defense expert, an orthopedic surgeon and a professor at the Yale University Medical School, testified that the defendant’s performance of the surgery was entirely appropriate and well within the applicable standard of care. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award literally millions of dollars (the medical bills and loss of earning capacity claims alone were worth a little over a million dollars) and also sought punitive damages from the defendant. The jury deliberated for about an hour after a 6-day trial before returning a defense verdict.

Gregory Glasser and Mario Gomez obtained Summary Judgment in a wrongful death case where the firm represented a Home Health Aide company. On the morning of the tragic incident, the daughter of the man for whom our client was providing services asked our home health aide to drive the father to an event. It was claimed that our aide agreed to do the driving. The father chose to drive, with the aide as a passenger. The two were involved in a motor vehicle accident which resulted in the father’s death.

The two surviving daughters brought multiple claims against the home health aide and her employer. A counterclaim against the Plaintiffs was filed asserting the enforceability of an exculpatory provision and a hold-harmless agreement. The trial court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that our clients owed no duty to prevent the father from driving his car, and that our clients’ counterclaims for the exculpatory and hold harmless provisions were valid.

The Estate appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Estate argued that the trial court erroneously granted the motion for summary judgment because the Health Aide company owed a duty to the decedent to not allow him to drive. The Estate also argued that the decedent was not competent to enter into contracts for home health services, and that the decedent’s family was a party to any contracts that were entered and therefore, could not direct his care. Following oral argument, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curiam Affirmance.

The Home Health Aide company is currently pursuing recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs based upon our counterclaim and strategic Proposals for Settlement served early in the case.

Lou La Cava and David Young obtained a defense verdict for an emergency room physician and her employer in Pasco County in a medical malpractice, wrongful death case. The Plaintiff alleged the doctor, who was board certified in family practice and not emergency medicine, acted with reckless disregard in her care of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff arrived at the hospital neurologically intact but with a severe headache. The Plaintiff alleged a delay in diagnosing the patient’s subdural hematoma and further a delay in transferring to a hospital that had neurosurgery services since the community hospital did not have a neurosurgeon. Three hospitals turned down the transfer and the Plaintiff alleged the physician recklessly chose the wrong hospitals to call and did not see to it that the task was performed timely. They further argued the physician did not order fresh frozen plasma soon enough so the patient could receive it before transfer. The Plaintiff ultimately had a brain herniation and surgery was unsuccessful. The defense countered that the physician did in fact make the diagnosis timely and got the FFP ordered in time although it was not ready to infuse into the patient until after he left by helicopter. The defense further argued that looking at the care regarding transfer prospectively, the physician followed an appropriate plan to try and get the patient transferred. The defense also argued that earlier transfer or earlier infusion of FFP would not have prevented the death. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award more than 13 million dollars in damages. After just less than an hour and a half of deliberations the jury came back finding that the physician did not act with reckless disregard in her care of the patient and a full defense verdict in the physician’s favor.

Jeffrey M. Goodis, David Nelson, and Brittany Showalter, obtained a defense verdict for a Hospital in a wrongful death case in Pinellas County. The Plaintiff alleged that the Hospital’s employee cardiologist was negligent in failing to send the patient to the emergency room for an emergency cardiac catherization following the results of an exercise stress test. The stress test revealed some ST depression in the recovery phase of the stress test. Following the results of the stress test, the cardiologist recommended and emphasized the importance of undergoing a cardiac catherization. The patient refused this recommendation. Based on the patients refusal, the cardiologist attempted to get more information and recommended that the patient at least undergo a lexiscan stress test. The cardiologist also consulted the patients primary care physician in an attempt to try to have her persuade the patient to undergo the cardiac catherization; the patient again refused the primary care physician’s attempt. The patient passed away a week later. The defense argued that the cardiac catherization was not emergent and that the lexiscan was an appropriate alternative in light of the patients documented refusal. Furthermore, that the ST depression in the recovery phase was a result of the patients longstanding uncontrolled high blood pressure and accordingly, due to left ventricular hypertrophy. During closing arguments, the Plaintiff asked the jury to award in excess of $14 million in non-economic damages. After a 5 day case and less than 2.5 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding that the cardiologist was not negligent.