Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in a case involving Amendment VII

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in a case involving Amendment VII

/in

Jason M. AzzaroneJason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Sixth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court erred in overruling objections to interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. Specifically, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s order required the Defendant Hospital and Physician to respond to interrogatories that requested information regarding credentialing and medical review committee or board investigations on the basis that the information was discoverable pursuant to Article 10, Section 25 of the Florida Constitution, which is commonly known as Amendment VII. On Certiorari, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s Order overruling the objections departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring the Hospital and Physician to provide information that was protected by Florida Statutes §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(8) and 766.101(5). In quashing the Order under review, the Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed that the plain language of Amendment VII did not apply to interrogatories. The Sixth District Court of Appeal also agreed with the argument that the information was statutorily immune from discovery.

La Cava Jacobson

La Cava Jacobson Recognized in Chambers and Partners 2024 Rankings

/in

Tampa, FL – June 2024 – La Cava Jacobson is proud to announce that it has been recognized in the Chambers and Partners 2024 rankings, highlighting the firm’s exceptional legal expertise and dedication to client service. This prestigious acknowledgment underscores the firm’s commitment to excellence across multiple practice areas.

Chambers and Partners has ranked La Cava Jacobson for its outstanding work in Litigation: Medical Malpractice Defense. In addition to recognizing the firm, Chambers and Partners has awarded Band 1 ranking to Louis J. La Cava, and Band 2 ranking to David J. Nelson. These accolades reflect the firm’s deep expertise and successful track record in defending its clients across complex medical malpractice cases.

“We are honored to be recognized by Chambers and Partners,” said Louis J. La Cava, founding shareholder of the firm. “This acknowledgment is a testament to our firm’s hard work, dedication, and unwavering commitment to delivering top-tier legal services to our clients.”

La Cava Jacobson, with its AV Preeminent rating, continues to lead in the field of litigation defense, particularly in medical malpractice defense, offering litigation and appellate services throughout Florida. With over 45 attorneys across 7 offices, the firm combines extensive resources with personalized attention to effectively meet the needs of its clients.

For more information about La Cava Jacobson & and their Chambers and Partners ranking, visit La Cava Jacobson and Chambers and Partners.

Tia Jones Obtained a Dismissal for Fraud Upon the Court. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Second District Court of Appeal

Tia Jones Obtained a Dismissal for Fraud Upon the Court. Jason Azzarone Successfully Argues for Affirmance to the Second District Court of Appeal.

/in

Jason M. AzzaroneTia J. JonesTia Jones successfully argued to the Trial Court that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for Fraud Upon the Court where the firm represented the owner of an apartment complex. The Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell while walking through her apartment after advising the Defendant of a water leak. Over the course of discovery, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff had numerous back surgeries ranging over a decade which were not disclosed. The Defendant also learned that the Plaintiff had sought disability benefits for the exact injuries she was alleging stem from the slip and fall. The Trial Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court, finding that the Plaintiff was not truthful in her discovery responses.

The Plaintiff appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the Second District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant argued that the Trial Court erroneously granted the Motion to Dismiss because the issue of the Plaintiff’s past medical care went to her credibility which the jury should determine. Plaintiff/Appellant also argued that the Plaintiff did not intentionally misrepresent her past medical condition. Following oral argument, the Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curiam Affirmance.