La Cava Jacobson

Lou La Cava Obtained a Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case in Ocala, Florida

/in

Louis J. La CavaOn May 9th, Lou La Cava received a defense verdict after a 10 day medical malpractice case tried in Ocala. The plaintiff alleged that 3 separate health care providers in an orthopedic practice failed to inform the Plaintiff of a lesion on his kidney after an MRI of his spine. Two of the providers said they informed the patient even though that conversation was not documented in the medical record. The third provider testified that she did not look at the MRI report so she would not have advised the patient about the kidney lesion. The lesion turned out to be a renal cell carcinoma and was diagnosed and treated 9 months later. The patient went on to develop metastatic disease to his lung. It was plaintiff’s position that the patient was never told about the lesion, that the providers should have given him a copy of the MRI report and they should have also sent the report to the patient’s primary care physician. They alleged the 9 month delay caused the cancer to metastasize. They claimed the patient would have had a 95% chance of survival and now the cancer was incurable. The defense position was that telling the patient met the standard of care and that the providers had a reasonable expectation he would follow up. Further, the third provider did not have an obligation to look at the MRI report during the visits she had with the patient. On causation, the defense argued that unfortunately, due to the biology of the tumor the alleged nine month delay did not change the outcome for the patient. The Plaintiffs’ attorney asked the jury to award 34 million dollars. The Plaintiffs had previously turned down some offers to settle before trial. The jury returned a defense verdict finding none of the providers liable and awarded no money damages.

La Cava Jacobson

Jaclyn Jones Obtained a Defense Verdict in a Medical Malpractice case in Hillsborough County

/in

Jaclyn JonesJaclyn Jones obtained a defense verdict for a Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician in a medical malpractice case in Hillsborough County. Plaintiffs alleged that the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician acted with reckless disregard by failing to timely and appropriately intubate an 18-year-old patient, who arrived at the hospital with a swelling throat due to a rare hereditary condition, which resulted in the patient’s death almost a week later. Plaintiffs alleged that the patient was intubated by anesthesia in the ER, within roughly 45 minutes after arrival at the hospital, and that our client should not have waited for anesthesia, but rather, intubated herself, and sooner. Shortly after intubation, the endotracheal tube became dislodged, and the patient was reintubated during CPR. The Plaintiffs in the case, the patient’s parents, sued for wrongful death damages, requesting $40 Million Dollars from the physician, and her employer and the hospital for vicarious liability of the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician’s alleged reckless disregard.

At trial, the defense presented evidence that the physician acted quickly and appropriately in her care and treatment of the patient. In triage, the patient could not talk and his only communication with the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician was a few short letters typed out on is phone, an acronym for his hereditary condition. She called for anesthesia to assist with intubation of the difficult airway and was about to intubate herself when anesthesia walked in and quickly intubated on the first attempt. Our retained Pediatric Emergency Medicine expert testified that the intubation not only occurred quickly, but likely 7 minutes after the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician first saw the patient in triage. Further, the defense established that an endotracheal tube becoming dislodged is a known complication and likely occurred shortly after a chest x-ray confirmed appropriate endotracheal tube depth. The patient’s oxygen saturations and HR started dropping after the x-ray, and the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician recognized the issue and heroically started CPR. The patient was reintubated during CPR and there was a return of spontaneous circulation shortly thereafter. The defense expert testified that the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician did not act with reckless disregard.

Three (3) months prior to the patient’s presentation to the ER, he had stopped taking the medication prescribed for his hereditary condition, which historically prevented laryngeal swelling. The defense established that the decedent likely waited hours or even a day, after onset of symptoms, before coming to the hospital after the episode began. The defense expert established that the failure to take his medications was the cause of his death.

After a short deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants having found that the Pediatric Emergency Medicine physician did not act with reckless disregard in her care and treatment of the patient. After rejecting reasonable offers of settlement, the plaintiffs were not awarded any monies by the jurors.

Tia Jones and Kari Jacobson Obtained a Defense Verdict for a Hotel in Orange County in a General Liability Lawsuit

Tia Jones and Kari Jacobson Obtained a Defense Verdict for a Hotel in Orange County in a General Liability Lawsuit

/in

Kari K. JacobsonTia J. JonesTia Jones and Kari Jacobson obtained a Defense Verdict for a Hotel in Orange County in a General Liability lawsuit. Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell while visiting the Hotel due to a ceiling leak in her guest room. As a result, she filed a lawsuit alleging that hotel was negligent for failing to maintain the flooring and ceiling of the guest room and/or warn her of the dangerous condition on the floor. Plaintiff alleged injuries to her cervical spine which resulted in surgery.

At trial, Plaintiff admitted to walking through the area multiple times without any issues prior to her fall. Moreover, all the Hotel witnesses testified that the Hotel was unaware of a leak in the ceiling prior to the incident and it would have been checked by Hotel staff prior to renting the room to Plaintiff. The Defense called a neurosurgeon at trial who testified that Plaintiff had pre-existing lumbar conditions which was the cause of her pain not the fall. The jury concluded that there was no negligence on part of the hotel which was the legal cause of injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

La Cava Jacobson

La Cava Jacobson obtains Dismissal with Prejudice in a Medical Malpractice Case

/in

La Cava Jacobson recently prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice Complaint against healthcare Defendants without serving a Notice of Intent and accordingly did not participate in pre-suit as required by Florida Statue 766. Following arguments by all parties, the Judge ruled in favor of the Defense and found that the subsequent serving of a notice of intent could not be curative because the statute of limitations had run and accordingly the ruling was with prejudice.

La Cava Jacobson

La Cava Jacobson Obtained a Summary Judgment on Behalf of Podiatrist

/in

La Cava Jacobson recently won a Summary Judgment on behalf of podiatrist concerning the foreign body rebuttable presumption Florida Statute 766.102(3)(b). Plaintiff alleged that they were entitled to the rebuttable presumption under this statute because a foreign body was removed from the Plaintiff’s foot almost a month following a procedure with the podiatrist. Plaintiff argued that the foreign body was a needle left by the podiatrist; however, the foreign body was not maintained following removal and it was disputed what the foreign body actually was and where it came from. Plaintiff argued that they had to show nothing more than that it was a foreign body. In response, Defendant argued that because it was disputed what the object was and where it came from, the foreign body presumption should not apply. The Judge agreed and granted Defendant’s Summary Judgment.

La Cava Jacobson

La Cava Jacobson obtained a Summary Judgment in a Personal Injury Case Representing an Equestrian Center

/in

La Cava Jacobson obtained Summary Judgment in a personal injury case where the firm represented an equestrian center that offers many services, including guided horseback trail rides. In this case, the Plaintiff’s horse would not traverse a puddle on the trail, so the equestrian center’s guide instructed the Plaintiff to go around the puddle, off trail, and ultimately to dismount the horse when it got stuck in muddy terrain. The Plaintiff argued that she was reliant on instruction from the guide as to how to safely participate in equine activities and that the Defendant’s trail guide negligently instructed a novice rider to dismount a horse, resulting in injury. The Trial Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the defendant was entitled to statutory immunity from liability under Florida Statute 773.02 and that no exception existed under Florida Statute 773.03.

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.

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.

Gregory Glasser Obtains a Summary Judgment for Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami

Gregory Glasser Obtains a Summary Judgment for Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami

/in

Gregory GlasserGregory Glasser recently won a Summary Judgment on behalf of Miami-Dade County and Jackson Memorial Hospital. In this case the Plaintiff was atop an elevator cab performing service work when the elevator unexpectedly energized and went up, crushing the Plaintiff between the cab and the building structure and resulting in catastrophic injury. Greg successfully argued that our clients were protected by sovereign immunity, and even if immunity did not apply, our clients owed no duty to the Plaintiff. The Miami-Dade County Judge agreed and entered a lengthy order in favor of our clients, finding sovereign immunity applied and no duty was owed.

Lou La Cava and Justine Adamski Obtained a Defense Verdict in a Wrongful Death Case Against a Hospitalist in Pinellas County Florida

Lou La Cava and Justine Adamski Obtained a Defense Verdict in a Wrongful Death Case Against a Hospitalist in Pinellas County Florida

/in

Justine D. AdamskiLouis J. La Cava

Lou La Cava and Justine Adamski obtained a defense verdict in a two week medical malpractice wrongful death case tried in Pinellas County. The Plaintiff, who was 63 years old at the time, died within 26 hours after being discharged by the defendant hospitalist. He was survived by his wife and daughter. The patient came into the ER after having two episodes of shortness of breath and chest tightness the night before and the day of the visit. ER did an EKG which showed a left axis deviation and was called abnormal. A second EKG was normal. They worked him up as a cardiac patient. Troponins were normal. Chest x-ray was normal and D-Dimer was normal. ER physician’s assistant asked that the patient be admitted. The defendant admitted him for observation rather than as an in patient. The patient gave a history of asthma and took Advair for that. He had hypertension and diabetes. The defendant ordered an exercise and nuclear stress test to be performed the next morning. It was performed by a nuclear medicine physician. It was read as normal with the patient going about 7 minutes before needing the test stopped for fatigue and shortness of breath. The patient had two additional episodes of SOB in the hospital that appeared to be relieved by his asthma medicine. After the stress test the defendant discharged him but did not write a note and did not document a physical exam. He did not dictate his discharge summary until the next day after the patient had passed away. The patient was given a prescription for Albuterol to use as a rescue inhaler if he became SOB. The discharge diagnosis was reactive airway disease. It was recommended that he see his PCP in a week and have out patient pulmonary function tests done. He was told to do activities as tolerated. He went home and was apparently fine that day. He did not get the prescription for albuterol filled. The next day he was apparently fine in the morning but toward noon he began having either SOB or chest pain. He asked his wife to pick up the prescription. He went up to lie down and when the wife returned he had passed away. This was approximately 26 hours after he left the hospital. On autopsy he have left ventricular hypertrophy and moderate to severe COPD and emphysema. He apparently died from an arrythmia.

Plaintiff claimed he needed cardiac and pulmonary consults. Cardiologist would have ordered an echocardiogram which would have diagnosed LVH. A pulmonologist they claimed would have done pulmonary function studies which would have diagnosed his lung disease. If this was done plaintiff alleged he would have been put on alternative lung medication because the one he was on can increase the likelihood of an arrythmia. He would have also been given an oral steroid. A cardiologist would have adjusted his blood pressure meds to try to reverse his LVH. He would have been placed on bed rest and would have survived. Plaintiff had 4 expert witnesses testify. Plaintiff alleged his death was caused by another pulmonary SOB episode that led to the arrythmia.

The defense was that prospectively there was no need for the consultations. From a cardiac standpoint the work up was negative including an ejection fraction of 63. Even though he may have had LVH it was not causing left ventricular dysfunction. Therefore, the echocardiogram was not indicated. A pulmonologist was not needed because his pulmonary problem was not severe or continuous. It was episodic and responded to treatment. He did not need oral steroids for the same reason. The defense experts opined he died purely of a cardiac sudden death and there was nothing that could have been done in the hospital to prevent the death. PFTs can be done as an outpatient and even if done in the hospital would not have changed the treatment. The defense argued that when judged prospectively the care was well within the standard of care.

The jury deliberated approximately one hour and returned a verdict for the defense.