Civil Trial Defense Law Firm
La Cava Jacobson & Goodis handles litigation and appeals in all Florida state and federal courts.
Fort Lauderdale
550 West Cypress Creek Rd.
Suite 150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Tel: (754) 301-5060
Fax: (754) 551-6884
St. Petersburg
200 Central Avenue
Suite 250
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Tel: (727) 477-1013
Fax: (727) 550-0811
Jacksonville
1200 Riverplace Boulevard
Suite 201
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Tel: (904) 564-1900
Fax: (904) 980-9231
Tampa
501 East Kennedy Blvd.
12th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: (813) 209-9611
Fax: (813) 209-9511
Miami
7700 North Kendall Drive
Suite 411
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (786) 724-2600
Fax: (305) 847-3788
West Palm Beach
701 Northpoint Parkway
Suite 330
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Tel: (561) 282-1470
Fax: (561) 689-5013
Naples
9150 Galleria Court
Suite 100
Naples, Florida 34109
Tel: (239) 300-9679
Fax: (239) 734-3546
Lou La Cava and Vicki Jobling obtained a defense verdict in Pinellas County, Florida
/in Firm ResultsLou La Cava and Vicki Jobling obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case tried in Pinellas County, Florida. The Plaintiff alleged the defendant interventional radiologist improperly performed an arterial chemoembolization procedure to treat liver cancer. The patient died 6 days after the procedure from liver failure. The jury returned a verdict in less than an hour finding the defendant not negligent.
Lou La Cava obtained a dismissal with prejudice for his cardiologist client
/in Firm ResultsLou La Cava obtained a dismissal with prejudice for his cardiologist client. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant inappropriately ordered heparin for a patient after the patient had informed the hospital medical staff he did not want to be treated with heparin. The heparin was ordered due to the patient being in atrial fibrillation. The patient subsequently suffered a hemorrhagic stroke and was severely neurologically impaired. After several years of vigorously defending the case, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the doctor from the case without any settlement payment.
La Cava & Jacobson obtains a dismissal in a medical practice case in Volusia County
/in Firm ResultsLou La Cava and David Young obtained a dismissal of their client in a medical practice case filed in Volusia County. The Plaintiff alleged that the ophthalmologist was negligent in failing to properly follow and treat Plaintiff’s glaucoma. The Plaintiff alleged that he lost significant vision as a result of the treatment. After several years of litigation and the deposition of Plaintiff’s ophthalmology expert, Plaintiff dismissed the case against the physician without a settlement payment being made.
Lou La Cava and Vicki Jobling tried a brain damaged baby case in Hillsborough County
/in Firm ResultsLou La Cava and Vicki Jobling tried a brain damaged baby case in Hillsborough County that resulted in a hung jury. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the ob/gyn in failing to timely deliver the baby which resulted in severe neurological injury. The defense argued that the treatment rendered was appropriate. The jury was deadlocked 4 to 2 in favor of the defense.
Lou La Cava obtained a dismissal of his client from a medical malpractice
/in Firm ResultsLou La Cava obtained a dismissal of his client from a medical malpractice case. The Plaintiff alleged that the internal medicine physician was negligent in not responding in a timely manner to the Plaintiff’s complaints of chest pain. The plaintiff suffered a heart attack and ultimately required a heart transplant. After several years of litigation the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case against the physician without a settlement payment being made.
Lou La Cava obtained a dismissal of his client in a medical malpractice
/in Firm ResultsLou La Cava obtained a dismissal of his client in a medical malpractice case filed in Polk County. The Plaintiff alleged that a neurosurgeon failed to appropriately repair an odontoid fracture by utilizing an anterior surgical approach rather than a posterior approach. Plaintiff also alleged that the procedure was performed negligently by misplacing a surgical screw which allegedly caused the plaintiff neurological damage. After extensive discovery and exposing numerous flaws in the Plaintiff’s case, the Plaintiff filed a dismissal of the case with prejudice and no settlement was paid on behalf of the Defendant neurosurgeon.
Lou La Cava and Barbara Chapman obtained a defense verdict for two surgeons
/in Firm ResultsLou La Cava and Barbara Chapman obtained a defense verdict for two surgeons in a case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged one of the surgeons was negligent by perforating the patient’s stomach during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The defense argued that the perforation of the stomach occurred after surgery as a result of a ulcer caused by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories the patient had been on prior to surgeries. After the stomach repair surgery the patient had numerous complications and non-healing wounds. The patient ended up having 10 surgical procedures. The Plaintiff’s expert witness opined the surgeons were negligent in how they performed the subsequent surgeries. The defense argued the additional surgical complications were not caused by negligence. Plaintiff alleged she was permanently disabled, had chronic pain requiring narcotic pain medication, developed a large hernia, lost a large portion of her abdominal wall and had severe scarring. After a 3 week trail the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal
/in Firm ResultsJason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court erred in compelling the Defendant to produce documents in Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., v. Feller, 163 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). In its order, the Trial Court overruled the Defendant’s objections that the materials were protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. The Trial Court also held that the attorney-client privilege had been waived. The Fifth District Court of Appeal disagreed. Finding certiorari relief to be appropriate, the Court reversed, opining that the subject documents could still be protected work product even though they were prepared in a different case. The Court further found that the Trial Court erred in finding the attorney-client privilege inapplicable without conducting an in camera inspection. Finally, the Court disagreed with the Trial Court, finding that the attorney-client privilege was not waived by counsel’s statements or by the filing of a privilege log that the trial court viewed as containing insufficient detail.
Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal
/in Firm ResultsJason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial in Berkey v. Boyer, where the Second District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curium Affirmance. On Appeal, the Appellants argued that the Trial Court committed error by allowing the Defendants’ expert to testify at trial on the issue of the acceptable standard of care because there was no literature specifically supporting his opinions. Mr. Azzarone argued that the expert’s testimony was reliable pursuant to the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Mr. Azzarone also argued that contrary to the Appellants’ position, the expert was not required to provide articles or publications supporting his opinions in order to be admissible.
Kari Jacobson and Jonathan Ficarrotta obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case
/in Firm ResultsKari Jacobson and Jonathan Ficarrotta obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, an independent living/assisted living facility, was negligent in failing to maintain its premises in a safe condition resulting in a closet door falling onto Plaintiff. The jury found that the Defendant breached no duty to Plaintiff.