Davis v. Karr, 5th DCA
In this case, the Court addressed the issue of whether, under Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act, a presuit affidavit submitted by a plaintiff from a health care provider who does not specialize in the same field as the defendant nevertheless meets the statutory presuit investigatory requirements for filing a medical negligence suit. In the case reviewed, the defendant was an orthopaedic surgeon. The presuit expert affidavits provided by the plaintiff were executed by an emergency room physician, a radiologist and a nurse. Defendant sought dismissal asserting that the three affidavits were insufficient to meet the statutory presuit requirements of Section 766.102(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2013), because none of the affidavits was from an expert witness specializing in his field of orthopaedic surgery. The 5th DCA affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plain language of the statue required the presuit affidavit to be executed by a physician within the same specialty as the defendant.
Henry v. State, 4th DCA
In this case, the Court affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling that a photograph of a contact information screen on a cell phone was not inadmissible hearsay. The Court explained that if the photograph was used to prove the defendant’s telephone number, it would be considered inadmissible hearsay. However, the contact information screen addressed at trial was similar to an entry in an address book, which Courts have generally held to be non-hearsay when used for the limited purpose of proving association between the maker of the address book and another.
Middleton v. Don Asher & Assoc, 5th DCA
In this premises liability case, the 5th DCA reversed the Trial Court’s order granting summary judgment. Plaintiff owned property where the incident occurred and had resided there for fifteen years. While walking on the defendant’s premises, plaintiff tripped on an uneven sidewalk and was injured. The opinion notes that the plaintiff had previously walked the property on several occasions and frequently passed the area where she fell. She then brought a negligence action against Appellees. The Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgment, which argued that the condition of the sidewalk was open and obvious. In response, plaintiff argued that even if the condition was open and obvious, an issue of fact remained as to whether the defendant should have anticipated that condominium residents would use the sidewalk and encounter the cracked and uneven concrete, requiring it to be inspected and repaired. While the 5th DCA agreed that an uneven sidewalk was an open and obvious condition as a matter of law, because the issue of the defendant’s duty to maintain and repair existed, summary judgment was not appropriate.
Florida Hospital v. Newsholme: 4th DCA
In this medical malpractice case, the 4th DCA reversed the Trial Court’s order allowing the plaintiff to amend the Complaint to assert punitive damages. In doing so, the 4th DCA held that the Trial Court utilized an incorrect legal standard. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order acknowledging that, pursuant to Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, plaintiff needed to make a reasonable showing by evidence which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages. The Trial Court also stated that it was bound to take plaintiff’s allegations as true, stating, ” [t]he standard of whether a claimant has established a ‘reasonable basis’ for recovery is similar to that of whether a claimant has stated a cause of action.” The 4th DCA noted that in Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), it held that Section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, required the Trial Court to act as a gatekeeper and precluded a claim for punitive damage where there was no reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages. As explained by the 4th DCA, presenting mere allegations was not enough to warrant amendment. Because the Trial Court did not determine whether the evidence presented satisfied the “reasonable showing” requirement, the Order was quashed.
Wheaton v. Wheaton – Florida Supreme Court
In this case, the Florida Supreme Court held that a proposal for settlement was not subject to the email service provisions of Florida’s Rules of Judicial Administration. As the Florida Supreme Court noted, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure require that while a proposal shall be served upon a party, the proposal is not filed unless necessary for enforcement. Florida’s service provisions now require service by email. The Florida Supreme Court noted that a notice of proposal for settlement does not require service by email because the proposals themselves are not filed until a party seeks attorney’s fees. All that is required is service of the notice, so that the opposing party is made aware of the proposal. Finally, the Florida Supreme Court noted that failing to comply with email requirements does not render the proposal unenforceable.
METROPCS Communications v. Porter: 3rd DCA
Court held that an arbitration provision contained monthly text messages to plaintiff was enforceable. The text message informed the plaintiff of terms and conditions of service and contained a hyperlink which plaintiff could use to read the arbitration agreement.
Manzaro v. HCA, (3rd DCA)
In this wrongful death malpractice case, the Manzaro Court held that the Trial Court properly dismissed the complaint where there was a failure to comply with the statutory presuit requirements pursuant to Florida’s medical malpractice laws. The Trial Court conducted a two-hour hearing to afford the plaintiff the opportunity to demonstrate that he conducted a good faith investigation and had a reasonable basis for the claims asserted in the complaint. As the Manzaro Court concluded, while the death certificate asserted that the decedent died of natural causes, the autopsy report of the plaintiff’s expert was inconclusive. There was no corroborating expert affidavit and the Trial Court further found that there were scant details among the facts to explain the actual proximate cause of the wrongful death alleged. The Trial Court also found that it was not at all clear what the doctors and hospitals did or failed to do that constituted a breach of the standard of care that may have resulted in the wrongful death. As this finding was made after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations, the matter was dismissed with prejudice properly.
Osceola Regional Hospital v. Calzada, (5th DCA)
In an argument presented by Mr. Azzarone and Mr. Nelson, the Osceola Regional Hospital Court agreed that the Trial Court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the defendant hospital’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to comply with presuit. The Osceola Regional Hospital Court held that the Trial Court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make express findings as to whether the plaintiff complied, or did not comply, with Florida’s medical malpractice presuit screening requirements.