Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the trial court did not err in granting a motion to compel arbitration in a medical malpractice lawsuit in Santiago v. Baker, — So.3d —-, 2014 WL 1396594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). On appeal, the Appellants argued that the arbitration agreement before the Court violated Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act, Chapter 766, Fla. Stat. (2011). Specifically, Appellants argued that the agreement violated Florida’s public policy and, based on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Franks v. Bowers, 116 So.3d 1240 (Fla.2013), the Medical Malpractice Act required the resolution of all malpractice claims through statutory voluntary binding arbitration or trial. Mr. Azzarone argued that the Florida Supreme Court, in its decision, did not negate the ability of parties to enter into arbitration agreements in medical malpractice cases, provided that the rights afforded to the parties in the Medical Malpractice Act were not negated by the terms of the arbitration agreement. As none of the rights afforded to the Appellants in the Medical Malpractice Act were negated by the arbitration agreement before the Court, Mr. Azzarone argued that the trial court’s order should be affirmed. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the arbitration agreement was not void as against public policy. The Court also opined that nothing in the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion precluded private binding arbitration agreements under Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act.

View Court Document

Lou La Cava and Dan Schuman obtained a defense verdict in a case tried in Pinellas County. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendant gastroenterologist was negligent in performing an unnecessary colonoscopy 6 weeks after a prior colonoscopy. She alleged that the suspicious lesion seen on the colonoscopy was nothing more than a Lipoma (a benign mass) that had been identified on two previous colonoscopies. The plaintiff suffered a perforation during the last colonoscopy and required a right Hemicolectomy. After that surgery the plaintiff complained of fecal incontinence, fecal urgency and uncontrolled diarrhea. The defense argued the colonoscopy was indicated due to the patient’s family history of polyps and colon cancer. It was also argued that the perforation was a known risk of the colonoscopy and occurred without negligence. After a 5 day jury trial a verdict was returned finding the physician not negligent.

View Court Document

Lou La Cava and Barbara Chapman obtained a defense verdict for their client in a case tried in Pasco County. The Plaintiff alleged the surgeon was negligent during the performance of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy causing injury to the common bile duct requiring the Plaintiff to have to undergo a major surgical repair surgery. After a one week trial the jury returned a verdict finding the surgeon was not negligent.

Kari Jacobson and Jonathan Ficarrotta obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, a construction company, was negligent in failing to maintain its premises in a safe condition resulting in Plaintiff falling three stories down an empty elevator shaft. The jury found the Plaintiff to be a trespasser and that Defendant breached no duty to Plaintiff.

Lou La Cava and David Young obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, emergency room physician, was negligent for failing to have a patient who suffered a TIA admitted to the hospital. Plaintiff also alleged that it was negligent to prescribe Clonidine to the patient to control his blood pressure arguing a theory of auto-regulation and permissive hypertension. Plaintiff argued that giving the blood pressure medication and not admitting the patient resulted in him developing a stroke the next morning. Plaintiff sought damages for both motor and cognitive deficits. After a seven day jury trial, a verdict was returned finding the defendant doctor was not negligent.