Firm Results

Lou La Cava obtained a summary judgment for his radiologist client in a medical malpractice case filed in Charlotte County. The plaintiff alleged and had an affidavit to support allegations that the radiologist negligently interpreted a CT of the brain resulting in the delay in diagnosis of a stroke. The Plaintiff suffered severe neurological injuries. After the depositions of the parties the Plaintiff agreed that the radiologist was entitled to summary judgment and did not oppose the motion. The summary judgment was granted in favor of the radiologist and the case continued against the defendants represented by other law firms.

Lou La Cava and Brett Gliosca obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice wrongful death case tried in Hillsborough County. The plaintiff alleged that a family practice physician was negligent in failing to diagnose pneumonia and not sending the patient to the hospital for emergency treatment resulting in his death about 36 hours after an office visit. The defense argued that the care and treatment provided based on the diagnosis met the standard of care. It was further argued that it was not a severe pneumonia that led to his death. Instead, more likely than not he dies from an arrhythmia due to underlying hypertensive heart disease. After a 6 day trial the jury returned a verdict finding there was not negligence on the part of the physician that was a legal cause of the patient’s death.

Barbara Chapman and Jason Azzarone were successful in securing a summary judgment in a civil rights case filed by an inmate in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, in which the firm represented two nurses who provided medical care to Hillsborough County inmates.  The Plaintiff alleged that he was denied medical care and that the nurses neglected his condition in violation of his Eighth Amendment Rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment.   A motion for summary judgment was filed, arguing that based on the medical records, the Plaintiff could not establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition as required by Federal law.  The Court agreed, finding that the Plaintiff could not demonstrate deliberate indifference and therefore, there were no genuine issues of material fact to present to the jury.

Lou La Cava and David Young obtained a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged that the physician was negligent for failing to diagnose and treat a pelvic fracture in a woman who was brought to the emergency room from the rehabilitation hospital where she was recovering from a revision of a prior hip replacement. The Plaintiff claimed pain and suffering damages due to the alleged delay. The defense argued that the physician met the standard of care and that in fact the appropriate treatment provided by the physician reduce her pain and suffering during her recovery. After a 4 day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the physician after deliberating for approximately one hour.

David Nelson and Vicki Jobling were successful in obtaining a Final Summary Judgment in favor of a hospital in a case involving allegations that the hospital was liable for the alleged negligence of an emergency room physician.

In that case, the plaintiff alleged that when he came to the ER following a sports-related injury to his foot and ankle, the emergency medicine providers negligently failed to diagnose “compartment syndrome” a painful condition that can lead to irreversible muscle and nerve damage. The plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the failure to diagnose “compartment syndrome,” he suffered permanent muscle and nerve damage in his foot, ankle and leg, leading to pain and an inability to not only perform his job as an insurance claims adjuster, but also the loss of promotion possibilities at his place of employment. In his Complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the hospital could be held liable for the negligence of the emergency medicine providers under “non-delegable duty” and “apparent agency” theories. The Judge disagreed and entered a Final Order of Summary on these claims. A copy of that Order and the Order denying the plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing are attached to this email.