Firm Results

Lou La Cava obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case tried in Saint Petersburg, Florida. The Plaintiff alleged that the defendant Ophthalmologist was negligent in treating a post operative endophthalmitis after a pars plana vitrectomy for a retinal detachment.  The plaintiff argued the intravitreal antibiotics used were at dosages that created too high of a concentration due to the gas bubble placed during  the vitrectomy. They also alleged that this caused retinal toxicity resulting in the total loss of vision in one eye and the future need for an enucleation. They took the position that the standard of care required removing the gas bubble before injecting the antibiotics and if that was done her vision would have been salvaged. The defense position was that the dosage of antibiotics used was necessary to treat the infection and although it was at a  higher concentration, it was not high enough to cause retinal toxicity. Instead, it was the  post operative endophthalmitis which led to the loss of vision. The plaintiff asked for two million dollars  for 4 years of past non economic  damages and asked the jury  to use that number to determine future non economic damages for the next 15 years. After deliberating for approximately 40 minutes the jury returned a total defense verdict.

On 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.

Tia 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 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.

Jason 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.