Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer Blawg

The Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer quite often fields inquiries from individuals who have fallen while receiving alleged care or treatment from a healthcare facility and have been injured, as a result thereof. Part of the analysis of whether the healthcare provider is liable not only involves and analysis of causation, and proximate cause, but also whether the potential lawsuit must be brought under Florida's strict Medical Malpractice Statues, or is the fall a result of simple negligence.

Recently Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals held that a negligence claim arising from patient's fall off stretcher at hospital is subject to medical malpractice pre-suit requirements. The case was styled, Indian River Memorial Hospital vs. Browne, cited at 44 So. 3d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 9/29/2010).

The facts revealed that an emergency room patient fell of a stretcher and injured his head, leading to his death. The patient's estate filed a negligence claim against the hospital, alleging that the hospital violated a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent a fall given its knowledge of the patient's disoriented state. The hospital moved to dismiss the negligence claim for failure to comply with the medical malpractice pre-suit requirements contained in Chapter 766, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but the Fourth District reversed on appeal.

The Fourth DCA explained that the Chapter 766 presuit requirements apply to medical malpractice claims, which are those claims "arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." The Court stated that definition applied here, since the standard of care for the hospital's treatment of the patient was based in part on the hospital's staff's evaluation of his medical condition, and in part on the prevailing professional standard for supervising emergency room patients.

Continue reading "Patient Falls While In Hospital or Under Doctors' Care in Florida!" »

Florida Statute §773.01(6) provides immunity from death or injury resulting from the inherent risks of equine activity, which is defined as "dangers or conditions which are an integral part of equine activities"; along with a list of several examples. One of the exceptions is that the immunity will not apply if the sponsor "commits an act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have done or omitted under the same or similar circumstances or that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, which act or omission was the proximate cause of the injury".

Recently, in the Fourth District Court of Appeal's Case entitled McNichol vs. South Florida Trotting Center, Inc. , a plaintiff was injured at a harness track due to a two foot mound of dirt created by the Defendant that blocked access from the track to the grass infield which was intended as a safe spot for trainers to go when a horse is out of control. The trainer was injured because apparently the horse he was training was distracted by a vehicle and then took off across the track into the dirt mound causing the plaintiff to be ejected. The Plaintiff argued that this mound was not a normal condition for training tracks and was not normally associated with training horses. The defendant, naturally, moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that the injuries resulted from the inherent risks or that the plaintiff assumed the risk of an open and obvious condition.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's holding finding that a jury could have found in favor of the plaintiff that the mound was not an inherent risk of a equine activities. The Appellate Court also found error in the trial court's finding on assumption of the risk.

Continue reading "Davie, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Concerns for Horse Related Personal Injury Claims" »

Injured persons and their families who intend to present a claim for bodily personal injuries as a result of slipping and falling on another's premises and have been seriously injured often ask us whether evidence of prior falls would be helpful to demonstrating the defendant's negligence in support of their claim. Many times our client's ask us if there is a resource that we can go to determine if there have been similar accidents at the defendant's property and what can we do to gather this information to prove fault in this case.

To the contrary, in the case of Lewis vs. Sun Time Corp., So. 3d 35 FLW D 2316 (Fla. 3d DCA 10/20/2010) reiterated that "(i)t is well recognized that a no-accident history of the location of a premises liability case may be admitted into evidence for a variety of purposes, including the central one of showing that the area was not in fact dangerous or defective. In the instant case the trial court allowed the defendant to introduce evidence that there had been no falls since the building was constructed and opened in 1937. In the instant case, the court found that "the record shows that while there were (as there had to be) variations in the circumstances surrounding the steps and their use, their basic dimensions, configuration, and composition - and their dangerous character, or lack of same - remain constant for the 70 plus years they were in use... The significant of that stark fact was properly for the jury to consider."

The question then remains whether the plaintiff can introduce evidence that of prior incidents at the location of their particular fallen injury.

Continue reading "Pembroke Pines, Weston Florida Slip and Fall Lawsuit Considerations!" »

Recently in the case of Greenberg vs. Schindler Elevator Corp., So. 3d, 35 FLWD 2396 (Fla. 3d DCA 10/27/2010), it was ruled that the Trial Court erred in excluding the Plaintiff's evidence of prior problems with an escalator on which the Plaintiff alleged she had been injured and then allowed the defendant to argue in closing argument that there was no evidence of prior problems with the escalator. Furthermore, even after the jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, the court found that there was insufficient evidence of negligence on the defendant's part and still directed a verdict for the benefit of the defendants. When the Third District Court of Appeals issued its ruling returning the case to be retried at the trial level, the Appellate Court stated:

"Here, (plaintiff) presented evidence showing that "(defendants) were notified that the subject escalator stopped running earlier on the day of (plaintiff's) fall. There was no evidence that any work was performed on the escalator. From this, the jury could reasonably infer that (defendants) negligently failed to examine the escalator to determine what was causing it to stop running, and to correct the problem. Plaintiff's fall was a direct result of the escalator's sudden stop. Thus, since (plaintiff) presented evidence of negligence, the trial court erred in entering a directed verdict in favor of (defendants)."

The Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyers have quite a deal of experience and are currently representing clients who have been injured as a result of having fallen due to the carelessness of a property owner who had the duty to safely operate and maintained the escalator on its property, and neglected to do so. Often the property owner denies that the escalator was ever reported as having malfunctioned. The Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyers are particularly knowledgeable and skilled in uncovering the truth behind these serous accidents.

Continue reading "South Florida Escalator Personal Injury Claims - What Evidence is Admissible at Trial?" »

Prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's filed a second affidavit clarifying the expert's qualifications. At the motion to Dismiss hearing the trial court found the affidavits were insufficient. The Plaintiffs then filed a third clarifying affidavit. The hospital renewed its Motion to Dismiss and also alleged that the later affidavits were filed outside of the statute of limitations. The trial court, without addressing that argument, denied the motion to dismiss.

An injured plaintiff who looks to bring a medical malpractice suit must first conduct an investigation that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the health care professionals were negligent and that the negligence resulted in injury. See FS §766.203(2). After such investigation the plaintiff must serve each defendant with a notice of intent to initiate litigation. See FS §766.106(2)(a). This notice must be corroborated with a "Verified Written Medical Expert Opinion from a Medical Expert as defined in §766.202(6)." See FS §766.203(2).

A medical expert is a person regularly engaged in the practice of her or his profession and who otherwise meets the requirements of F.S. §766.102. The expert must have devoted professional time during the three years immediately proceeding the date of the occurrence to the active clinical practice of or consulting with respect to the same or similar health profession as the healthcare provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered. See F.S. §766.102(5)(c). The purpose of these requirements is to screen for frivolous lawsuits and give a defendant notice of a potential claim and promote pre-suit settlement. They are not intended to be a "Daedalean Labyrinth" that denies a plaintiff access to the courts.

Continue reading "Presuit Notice for a Malpratice Lawsuit in Pembroke Pines Florida - Part II" »

Recently, a case was decided by Florida's 5th District Court of Appeals concerning the necessity for a corroborating expert medical opinion as a pre-suit requirement for a medical malpractice claim against a hospital; which challenged an Order denying its Motion to Dismiss the medical malpractice claim due to an alleged failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements of Chapter 766 of Florida Statutes. The Court denied the hospital's Petition and held that the particular affidavits submitted by the plaintiff fulfilled the pre-suit requirements.

The facts were as follows: the Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital after complaining of abdominal pain. The physician prescribed narcotics but the nurses allegedly neglected to properly monitor him for possible known side effects and allegedly failed to document his vital signs throughout the night. Early in the morning the nurses found the plaintiff unresponsive and suffering from respiratory distress. The Plaintiff allegedly stopped breathing for 13 minutes and suffered brain damage.

When the Plaintiff's presented the hospital with its Notice of Intent to Initiate Medical Malpractice Litigation in accordance with Florida Statute Chapter 766 they attached an affidavit and the Curriculum Vitae from a registered nurse. The Affidavit did not specifically indicate that the alleged expert had any experience as a hospital nurse within the three (3) year's prior to the Plaintiff's incident, as is required by the statute. The affidavit however, did indicate the experts understanding of the facts and her opinion that the hospital and its staff were negligent and breached the applicable standard of care which caused severe harm to the plaintiff. The hospital challenged the qualifications of the plaintiff's expert to render and expert opinion and that it was clear the expert had not devoted any time to clinical practice for a significant length of time nor did she have appropriate training or experience to opine about the medical causation of the Plaintiff's injuries for pre-suit purposes.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Medical Malpractice Pre-Suit Requirements - Part I" »

A woman from Orem, Utah, who became extremely ill after eating spinach containing E. coli, has settled her multimillion dollar lawsuit against the companies responsible for her injuries. Chelsey Macey nearly died after eating Dole pre-washed baby spinach in 2006. She developed a very severe case of "post-infectious irritable bowl syndrome." Her lawyers, backed by the testimony of medical experts, argued that her condition is permanent and that she will be permanently disable.

Dole, among other companies, has accepted liability for the tainted spinach. Mrs. Macey suffers from "gripping abdominal pain and fatigue", which keeps her from doing normal activities such as working, going to school, or taking care of her household. Part of Mrs. Macey's pain and suffering includes her shyness about shopping or eating out due to her fear of losing control of her bowels.

As the jury ruled, Dole and the other companies are liable for Mrs. Dacey's injuries and pain and suffering. This E. coli is an example of products liability and Mrs. Dacey's injuries were the result of Dole putting a product in the market that was not suitable for human consumption. Had the spinach never reached the supermarket, Mrs. Dacey would not have developed this condition and she would not be suffering for the rest of her life. Unfortunately, cases like this are common, but The Florida Injury Lawyers have extensive experience litigating products liability cases in the South Florida area.

The reason this is a product liability matter is that Dole and the other companies had a duty to sell a safe product. By selling spinach that was contaminated with E. coli, they breached that duty and the contaminated spinach was the cause of Mrs. Macey's personal injury. Finally, she suffered injuries, which is why she was able to seek and collect damages.

Continue reading "Food Poisining Lawsuits - The Right to Bring a Lawsuit in Florida" »

A former patient of a professional football team doctor was awarded $2.2 million in damages last week by an arbitration panel. The panel found the doctor unanimously negligent when he performed hip surgery on Kathleen Adams in May 2007. The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Chao "lacerated her femoral artery, vein and nerve, resulting in chronic pain and a limp."

Like many of the clients that the Fort Lauderdale Medical Malpractice Lawyers have help, Adams "has constant radiating pain in her foot and ankle, walks with a limp and has to take four types of medication daily just to make the pain tolerable. The pain will be there the rest of her life."

It is incredibly unfortunate that innocent people suffer lifelong pain and damages because of a doctor's negligence and malpractice. However, our judicial system provides a remedy of seeking damages as a method of helping those who have been wronged by a doctor or any other medical professional.

Medical malpractice is negligence on the behalf of a medical professional and the failure of a medical professional to provide adequate care, resulting in personal injury suffered by the patient. Even if you signed a consent form, that does not release the medical professional from his or her obligation to meet the required standard of care that society expects from him or her.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice, Fort Lauderdale - Hip Surgery Negligence" »

Recently, an appellate court in Florida decided the case of Corbette vs. Wilson. The Wilson's commenced their lawsuit against Corbette seeking to recover damages for a 2007 accident, including a claim for "permanent traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." The Defendant admitted its fault, but the two-week trial was consumed by the issues of causation, permanency and damages. The jury returned a verdict of $15,000.00 in past medical expense for Ms. Wilson and $10,000.00 for Mr. Wilson's loss of consortium claim.

The jury found against the Wilson's on permanency and awarded zero for pain and suffering and future losses. The Wilson's claimed on Appeal that they presented unrebutted expert testimony on permanency and that they were therefore entitled to a finding of permanency as a matter of law. The case exemplifies the pivotal issue in many automobile accident cases, brought pursuant to Chapter 627 of the Florida Statutes under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act. That act places the burden upon an injury victim to provide sufficient evidence for the court to weigh that the plaintiff's injuries are "of a permanent and continuing nature within a reasonably degree of medical probability".

Typically, in almost every Fort Lauderdale automobile accident case there is a significant contest and conflict between the experts for both sides of the case on this issue - and without a finding to the victims favor, a verdict for the defendant will be entered.

Continue reading "Must a Fort Lauderdale Accident Victim Prove Permanent Injury? " »

Recently the Florida Supreme Court decided the case of Jonathan Greenfield, M.D. vs. Dorothea Daniels, which dealt with a claim being brought on behalf of a minor who was alleged to have been the biological child of a decedent, but her mother was married to a different man at the time of the child's conception and birth. The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the matter could be determined within the wrongful death action and didn't require a separate lawsuit to formally establish paternity. This was a 4th DCA case against Doctors Greenfield and Tenet, St. Mary's, Inc. d/b/a St. Mary's Medical Center.

The case arose from a lawsuit filed by the Estate of Shea Daniels, who had committed suicide in September, 2005. The lawsuit was brought by the mother as personal representative of his estate; which is required under the wrongful death statute in Florida. The lawsuit alleged that the late Mr. Daniels was negligently discharged by the Defendants without a proper discharge assessment, even though he was opined to have been suicidal by another physician.

Dr. Greenfield moved for a Partial Summary Judgment against the minor child alleging that since the minor's mother was married to someone other than the decedent when she was conceived and born, the mother's husband's paternal rights had been divested - and therefore she lacked standing as a statutory survivor.

While this case was decided in favor of the young plaintiff, it exemplifies the complicated nature of successfully plaintiffing a wrongful death case and in particular one involving medical malpractice.

Continue reading "Who Can Bring a Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuit?" »

This Fort Lauderdale Injury Law Firm, as well as most equally committed to victims' rights law firms throughout Fort Lauderdale and the State of Florida generally agree to work for injured plaintiffs and their family members on a contingency fee basis. What that means essentially is that an injury victim can obtain the services of a skilled and knowledgeable injury attorney and only pay a reasonable attorney's fee in the event that the attorney essentially wins the victims case. Generally, for settlement under $1 million, the Ft. Lauderdale Injury Attorney receives 33 1/3% of the gross recovery and 40% of the first million dollars recovered if a lawsuit and answer thereto has been filed with the court.

The question that should be considered by many injury victims considering filing suit and having their case tried is can the victim be held liable for attorney's fees if he or she "loses" their case? Generally speaking, pursuant to Florida Statute §768.79 and Rule 1.442, if an injury victim plaintiff unreasonably refuses to accept a proposal for settlement, which is defined as having a verdict rendered for more than 25% less than the proposal, then the injury victim must pay the defendant's attorney's fees and costs. Similarly, the injury victim can likewise make a demand for judgment or settlement and if a verdict is thereafter rendered successfully for the victim greater than 125% of the amount demanded then the Court must award the victim's attorney's fees and costs to be paid by the defendant.

It is therefore, very important to choose a knowledgeable and skilled Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney to properly guide and advise the victim so as not be liable to pay the defendant's attorney's fees; while also focused to recovery as much damages as possible and as much of the victim's attorney's fees as possible.

Continue reading "Is a Fort Lauderdale Injury Claimant Responsible for the Wrongdoer's Attorney's Fees? " »

Wrongful death in Florida is a statutory claim against a person or corporate entity that can be held liable for another's death.

Recently, a woman charged with murdering a California Highway Patrol officer was also served with civil lawsuit papers for wrongful death. It is often easier to win a wrongful death lawsuit through tort as opposed to a criminal lawsuit. In this case, the family of the deceased officer, Brett Oswald, filed suit for personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death. These types of lawsuits are very common in the Fort Lauderdale area, especially as a result of car accidents. For example, if a drunk driver in Fort Lauderdale were to cause a car accident and kill the other driver, the Estate and statutory survivors of the decedent would be entitled to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the drunk driver.

Our judicial system allows for both a criminal and civil lawsuit against the same person. In Florida, when filing a wrongful death lawsuit, it is particularly challenging to seek and gain compensation, often requiring the unique skill set of a law firm that has extensive experience handling complex wrongful death litigation (http://www.schulaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1676427.html). The Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer has represented numerous victims in wrongful death lawsuits.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Wrongful Death Claims" »

An auto insurance policy can be a complex and confusing thing, so I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss the basic components of an auto insurance policy, so that you can be certain that you have the best protection possible.

The first aspect of a good auto insurance policy is Bodily Injury Liability. This protects you if you or someone on your policy were to cause bodily injury to another person. Carrying a high dollar amount of protection is extremely important in South Florida, given the high number of accidents every year.

The next component is Personal Injury Protection, commonly abbreviated as PIP. PIP covers you and the passengers in your car if you are in an accident. It covers the cost of medical treatment, and lost wages.

Next, is property damage liability, which provides coverage, should you damage another's property, such as someone's fence or home. Best practice suggests that you have at least $50,000 coverage.

Another important aspect is collision coverage, which is insurance for your vehicle if you are in a car accident. If you are at fault for the accident, then collision coverage will cover the full value of your vehicle minus your deductible. If the accident is not your fault, someone like the Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer will file suit to try to get payment from the other person's policy.

Comprehensive coverage is something that many discount policies do not include. Comprehensive coverage protects you from theft, hurricanes, fires, etc. It is my suggestion that you at least cover the value of your car.

Finally, your auto insurance policy should include uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. This protects you if you are injured when you are not at fault for the accident, but the other person who caused the accident does not have auto insurance or does not have enough auto insurance. The Fort Lauderdale Injury Lawyer has extensive experience collecting substantial settlements in cases where the defendant is uninsured or underinsured.

Continue reading "Fort Lauderdale Accident Car Insurance; It Can Be Simplified! " »