Civil Trial Defense Law Firm
La Cava Jacobson handles litigation and appeals in all Florida state and federal courts.
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.
Florida Law Weekly – June 22, 2018
/in Case LawWallace v. Keldie – (1st DCA)
The Court held that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a personal injury suit for fraud upon the court where the plaintiff fraudulently concealed his history of chronic low back pain by falsely testifying about his medical history during deposition. According to medical records, seven months prior to the accident at issue, the plaintiff slipped and fell off a stepladder resulting in pain radiating into his left leg. Additionally, a medical records from an emergency room visit 9 days after the accident at issue reflected that the plaintiff stated that his back pain began a long time ago and it was made worse by the first accident. The court did not accept the plaintiff’s explanation that a poor memory caused his memory loss or that his testimony was influenced by heavy drinking or medications.
Florida Law Weekly – June 1, 2018
/in Case LawCity of Coral Gables v. Blanco – (3rd DCA)
In this case, the Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review a non-final Order where the Trial Court found that the City, as a matter of law, was not entitled to sovereign immunity at the Motion to Dismiss stage. The Trial Court found that the City failed to establish that sovereign immunity was self-evident under the facts as pled. This case reinforces the standing rule of the Courts of Appeal that at the Motion to Dismiss stage, sovereign immunity is not an appealable issue unless the Trial Court holds, as a matter of law, that the party is not entitled to sovereign immunity.
Florida Law Weekly – May 25, 2018
/in Case LawRodriguez v. Nicolitz, M.D. – (1st DCA)
In this medical malpractice case, the Rodriguez Court held that the Trial Court properly dismissed an action against an ophthalmologist upon finding that the Affidavit of the Plaintiff’s expert, an infectious disease specialist, was inadequate to satisfy pre-suit notice requirements. The Rodriguez Court specifically found that the expert did not practice in the same specialty as the Defendant.
Florida Law Weekly – May 18, 2018
/in Case LawRodriguez v. City of South Miami – (3rd DCA)
In this case, utilizing its Certiorari jurisdiction, the Rodriguez Court, reversed a Trial Court Order compelling the Plaintiff to sign a document authorizing the release of his mental health records to the Defendant. The Rodriguez Court held that the records were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege and the City failed to show that the Plaintiff placed his mental health status at issue. In its opinion, the Rodriguez Court looked to Florida Statute § 90.503(2) which establishes the privilege. The City’s argument with respect to entitlement was that the Plaintiff had filed a Motion to Dissolve a Temporary Restraining Order and in paperwork the Plaintiff noted that he was stable and taking his medication. The Rodriguez Court found that this statement alone did not permit the waiver of the privilege.
Domino’s Pizza v. Wiederhold – (5th DCA)
In this wrongful death case, the Court held that a statutory survivor and specifically, a surviving spouse, in order to be qualified to bring the suit and to receive benefits pursuant to Florida law, needed to be married to the decedent at the time of his death and not at the time of the injury.
Florida Law Weekly – May 11, 2018
/in Case LawLamb v. State – (4th DCA)
In this case, the Lamb Court addressed whether a Facebook live video was admissible in the criminal context as evidence of guilt. The Court went through a detailed analysis with respect to how the video was obtained by the police, as well as presented at trial. Specifically, the State introduced the testimony of a police digital forensic examiner to authenticate the video. As part of this process, the witness authenticated the video by its distinctive characteristics.
The Lamb Court held that the Trial Court properly authenticated and allowed the video to be presented to the jury. The Lamb Court recognized that authentication is a very low threshold which was met by the witness visiting the Facebook page and downloading the live video.