Keith Puya and Steven Lury Were Successful in Defending a Medical Malpractice claim in Palm Beach County

Keith Puya and Steven Lury Were Successful in Defending a Medical Malpractice claim in Palm Beach County

/in

Steven M. LuryKeith J. PuyaKeith Puya and Steven Lury represented an orthopedic surgeon in Palm Beach County in connection with a medical malpractice claim. It was alleged that the client was negligent in performing a diagnostic knee arthroscopy in the presence of a potential infectious process, i.e., a scab on the surgical knee. Post surgery, the Plaintiff developed a severe MRSA infection in the knee requiring several months of IV antibiotic therapy, followed by oral antibiotics. Plaintiff is now in need of a total knee replacement at the age of 30. Mr. Bamburg also had approximately 14 surgeries, including a major fasciotomy, a number of arthrotomies and manipulations under anesthesia as well as over $1.3 million in medical expenses. Both the plaintiff’s treating orthopedic and retained expert did not believe it was safe for him to have a total knee replacement, given his extremely high risk for developing a peri-prosthetic joint infection and the possible need for an amputation. The plaintiff is left with a significant flexion contracture, loss of extension and major scarring and deformity of his right leg.

The plaintiff requested the jury award damages in the range of approximately $19 million to around $28 million dollars give the fact that the plaintiff’s projected life expectancy was over 45 years. The defense centered around the fact that although there were numerous post operative pictures, there was no picture of any scab on the surgical knee, even though the Surgery Center nurses, pre-operatively noted in the records that the patient had ‘scabs on bilateral knees.’ The defense was successful in showing the jury that the client did not and never would perform an elective surgical procedure at or through a scab as suggested by the Plaintiff. The jury deliberated the case for 90 minutes and returned a Defense Verdict.

La Cava, Jacobson & Goodis Sponsor Hillsborough County Bar Association's YLD Golf Tournament

La Cava, Jacobson & Goodis Sponsor Hillsborough County Bar Association’s YLD Golf Tournament

/in

La Cava, Jacobson & Goodis Sponsor Hillsborough County Bar Association's YLD Golf Tournament For this years Hillsborough County Bar Association YLD Golf Tournament, La Cava, Jacobson & Goodis participated as a Gold Sponsor.

Proceeds from the YLD Golf Tournament help fund the Young Lawyers Division’s numerous community programs and activities during the Bar year.

Patrick Wier and Jeffrey Goodis Successfully Argued that the Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Present His Case to the Jury

Patrick Wier and Jeffrey Goodis Successfully Argued that the Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Present His Case to the Jury

/in

Jeffrey M. GoodisPatrick D. Wier In a case involving allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, Patrick Wier and Jeffrey Goodis successfully argued to both the Trial Court and the Second District Court of Appeal that the Plaintiff was not entitled to present his case to the jury because of the protections of Qualified Immunity. At the Trial Court level, they argued that the Plaintiff’s claim did not present any issues of material fact that could provide a reasonable basis to allege that the Defendant acted in a manner that was plainly incompetent or in knowing violation of the law when he performed his duties as an Assistant State’s Attorney. One of the issues argued was whether bad faith, including alleged legal malice, as an element of malicious prosecution, was sufficient to override a prosecutor’s immunity. Mr. Wier and Mr. Goodis argued that the prosecutor’s conduct was in good faith and that based on the knowledge of the facts at the time of filing of the Information, even if some investigative activity was performed, the prosecutor’s actions did not amount to bad faith as sometimes a prosecutor could make a decision that would later be questioned, or a victim could choose not to further pursue his or her claim, and neither would be sufficient to show the prosecutor acted in knowing violation of the law. They also argued that the Plaintiff had violated the victim’s right to custody several times prior to the date on which the Information was filed. The Trial Court entered an Order granting Final Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant. Upon Plaintiff’s appeal of this decision, Mr. Wier and Mr. Goodis argued that the Trial Court’s decision was correct. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision.