Firm Results

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in denying the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Disqualify the successor Judge assigned to the case. The Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion to Disqualify following a hearing addressing the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Despite being successful in defeating the Motion to Dismiss, the Renewed Motion to Disqualify was filed, arguing that comments made by the Judge during oral argument were improper, demonstrated bias towards the defense and supported the Plaintiffs’ belief that she would not receive a fair trial. Following the denial of the Renewed Motion to Disqualify, the Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Second District Court of Appeal, arguing that the denial was erroneous because the Judge’s comments were improper. In opposition, Mr. Azzarone argued that the comments were in no way inappropriate. Mr. Azzarone further argued that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy her burden of establishing error considering that the Plaintiff was attempting to disqualify a successor Judge. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed, denying the Petition for Writ of Prohibition.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in denying the Plaintiff’s Motions for Directed Verdict, Motion for Additur and Motion for New Trial in Santiago v. Osceola Regional Hospital, Inc., a premises liability case involving a hospital. The jury found for the Plaintiff, awarding a substantial amount for damages, and apportioned twenty percent of the fault to the hospital. At trial, the Plaintiff argued that no evidence was presented to establish that the Plaintiff was responsible for the slip and fall incident. The Trial Court denied this Motion. In his post-trial Motions, the Plaintiff argued that the amount awarded by the jury was far below the amounts requested (as supported by the evidence). The Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial argued that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Both of these Motions were denied. On appeal, Mr. Azzarone argued that conflicting evidence was presented to the jury regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to avoid the fall. Mr. Azzarone further argued that conflicting evidence was presented as to the Plaintiff’s injuries and the amounts associated with the alleged injuries. In summary, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the jury’s decision could not support his arguments for requiring a new trial. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed and entered a Per Curium Affirmance.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fourth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial in Gray v. Northwest Medical Center, Inc., et. al, a medical malpractice action involving the hospital and numerous physicians.  On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the Trial Court erred in allowing the Defendants to advise the jury of the decedent’s prior misuse of medications, in advising the jury of the decedent’s prior suicide attempt, in allowing the Defendants to argue that the decedent was comparatively at fault for his death and in failing to instruct the jury with respect to the alleged failure to follow hospital protocols.  In response, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s rulings were all proper.  Mr. Azzarone argued that the evidence of prior misuse of medications was admissible as the misuse began a cascade of conditions that ultimately led to the decedent’s death.   Mr. Azzarone further argued that the evidence of prior suicide attempts was properly admitted to rebut trial testimony meant to establish that the decedent had no personal issues, matters that were directly relevant to the damages sought by the Estate.   Regarding evidence of comparative fault, Mr. Azzarone argued that evidence linking the misuse of medications to the decedent’s death was established by expert testimony and therefore, the jury was properly instructed on this issue.  Finally, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court properly denied the Plaintiff’s requested special jury instruction regarding the failure to follow hospital protocols as the instruction was not permitted by Florida law and was unnecessary as the matter was argued by Plaintiff’s Counsel during closing arguments.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curium Affirmance.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in granting the Defendant’s renewed Motion for Directed Verdict in Shelatz v. Punta Gorda HMA, LLC, a premises liability case involving a hospital.  The jury found for the Plaintiff and apportioned ten percent of the fault to the hospital.  In its post-trial renewed Motion for Directed Verdict, Defendant argued that no evidence was presented establishing that a duty was owed by the Hospital to the Plaintiff.  The Trial Court agreed and on appeal, the Appellant argued that the Trial Court’s decision was in error.  In response, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court correctly  recognized that evidence was presented establishing that the Plaintiff failed to comply with his contractual obligations to ensure the existence of a safe workplace.  Mr. Azzarone also argued that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged hazard and failed to act reasonably to protect himself from the very incident that caused his damages.  The Second District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curium Affirmance.

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing a medical malpractice action in Shultz v. Citrus Memorial Hospital, Inc., based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Florida’s medical malpractice pre-suit requirements. The Trial Court granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the failure to provide any responses to pre-suit discovery. On appeal, the Appellant argued that the dismissal was erroneously entered because the defendants failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by the failure. Mr. Azzarone argued that the Trial Court’s decision was proper based upon the express finding that the Defendant was prejudiced. Additionally, Mr. Azzarone argued that the Appellant gave no reasonable explanation for the failure to respond to the discovery requests. The Fifth District Court of Appeal entered a Per Curium Affirmance.