Florida Ruling Demonstrates Potential Pitfall for Plaintiffs Bringing Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
The future of this lawsuit depended on whether the alleged "severe withdrawal" death of a South Florida patient fell under ordinary negligence or medical malpractice.
May 21, 2020 at 02:13 PM
3 minute read
A plaintiff reluctant to describe his allegations against a Broward hospital and a Lauderdale Lakes behavioral treatment facility as medical negligence tripped on an appellate hurdle Wednesday, when the Fourth District Court of Appeal threw out his lawsuit because it didn't comply with the strict requirements of Florida's medical malpractice statute.
The opinion demonstrates the pitfalls of medical malpractice claims, which come into play when alleged wrongdoing involves the professional skill or judgment of medical experts. Unlike ordinary negligence, these claims come with stricter criteria to meet under Florida Statute Chapter 766 (2017).
Roberto Cortes sued in February 2019 after his daughter Daniela Cortes died of "a severe withdrawal syndrome," allegedly because she was suddenly cut off from seven medications that Memorial Regional Hospital had prescribed for her stay at a facility owned by Henderson Behavioral Health Inc.
Those medications carry risks of life-threatening withdrawal symptoms such as heart arrhythmias and seizures if they're abruptly stopped, according to the complaint, which said Cortes died after four days without them.
Defendants Henderson Behavioral Health and South Broward Hospital District argued those allegations fell under medical negligence. And under that standard, they alleged the plaintiff failed to comply with pre-suit requirements to conduct a "reasonable investigation," which included having a medical expert corroborate the claims.
But Cortes countered that statute didn't apply because the doctors and medical staff involved had repeatedly asked for the medications and "exercised correct medical judgment." Instead, he alleged it was the institutions that committed negligence by failing to follow doctors' instructions.
Commenting that it would be a "close call" after discovery, Broward Circuit Judge Michael Robinson had sided with the plaintiff, noting that when there's doubt about medical malpractice and ordinary negligence claims, the claimant should prevail.
But it wasn't so complicated for the Fourth DCA, which found the trial court "departed from the essential requirements of law" when it denied the motions to dismiss.
"We have no difficulty or doubt in concluding that plaintiff's claims sound in medical negligence. The acts from which the claims arise relate to 'the failure to render, medical care or services,' " the per curiam opinion said. " To prove the claims, plaintiff must show that the hospital and treatment facility breached the professional standards of care in failing to ensure that plaintiff received her medications and failing to recognize the danger of withdrawal symptoms."
Fourth DCA Judges Martha Warner, Mark Klingensmith and Jeffrey Kuntz sat on the appellate panel.
Lawyers for Henderson Behavioral Health, Joshua B. Walker and Eric J. Netcher of Walker, Revels, Greninger & Netcher in Orlando declined to comment on the case.
Plaintiffs counsel Alberto E. Lugo-Janer of CPLS in Orlando and South Broward Hospital District's lawyers M. Katherine Hunter and Eric D. Freedman of Chimpoulis & Hunter in Plantation did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
|Read the full ruling:
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
- 2Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 3Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
- 4Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 5Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250