Lou La Cava and Justine Adamski received a defense verdict after a 6-day trial in Sebring, Florida. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was negligent for performing an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) which they argued was not indicated. Plaintiff also alleged the procedure which could not be completed was performed negligently and resulted in the complication of acute pancreatitis. Finally, the Plaintiff argued that the complication was negligently treated resulting in the death of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asked for nearly 3 million dollars in damages. The jury returned a verdict in less than two hours finding that the Defendant was not negligent.

Lou La Cava and Jim Wetzel obtained a defense verdict in a case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was negligent in not timely diagnosing an esophageal tear. Plaintiff alleged permanent injuries, scarring, loss wages and pain and suffering. The jury returned a verdict finding the doctor not negligent.

Lou La Cava and David Young obtained a defense verdict in Pinellas County. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant was negligent for not diagnosing a ruptured Achilles tendon resulting in permanent injury due to the delay. The jury determined that the Defendant was not negligent, returning a verdict for the defense.

Lou La Cava obtained a defense verdict in a case tried in Hillsborough County. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant did not aggressively treat an infection after abdominal hernia surgery with mesh. Plaintiff went on to have his mesh removed resulting in loss of abdominal domain requiring additional surgery. Plaintiff alleged since the surgery he was totally disabled with chronic pain. In defense it was argued that the infection was appropriately treated, but in spite of that the mesh infection could not be cured which is a known complication of the procedure. The jury found no liability on the part of the Defendant.

Jason Azzarone was successful in securing a summary judgment in a premises liability case in which the firm represented a large hotel chain. The Plaintiff alleged that he was legally on the premises. While on the property, the Plaintiff slipped and fell, suffering an injury to his shoulder which required surgery. A motion for summary judgment was filed on the basis that the Plaintiff’s status on the property was that of either a trespasser or an uninvited licensee as he was not on the property for any purpose for which it was intended. Mr. Azzarone also argued that there was no evidence of a breach of duty owed to the Plaintiff. The Court agreed and specifically held that as a matter of law, the Plaintiff was not on the property for any purpose for which it was intended and therefore, his status was either that of a trespasser or an uninvited licensee. In light of this finding, and in light of the fact that there was no record evidence of any breach of duty owed to the Plaintiff, the Court granted final summary judgment on behalf of the hotel.