DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - OB/GYN NEGLIGENCE - ALLEGED LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT - CLAIMED UNNECESSARY AND NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED GYNECOLOGICAL SURGERY - PHYSICAL DEFORMITY - NEUROLOGICAL DEFICITS - SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION.

Pages8-9
weiler on the subject premises and of the dog’s vicious
propensities including the dog’s prior attack on a
Maltese poodle.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed in its duty
to the plaintiff in that it had the ability to control the pre-
misesbutfailedtotakeanyreasonableactiontopre
-
vent the dog from existing on the property and failed to
enforce the conditions outlined in its community rules
and regulations. The plaintiff alleged that the attack re-
sulted in permanent injuries. As a result of the attack, the
plaintiff suffered scratches and bite wounds to his left
hand. The plaintiff also sustained a torn labrum in trying
to fend off the attacking dog for which he underwent
surgery.
The third-party defendants purchased their house under
a Special Warranty Deed which specified that they were
required to defend and indemnify the defendant devel-
opment from any and all claims, including attorneys’
fees, resulting from or relating to the use of the common
areas of the Silver Palms Development by the third-party
defendant’s guests, family members or invitees. Further,
pursuant to Section 15.2 of the Deed, “No pet shall be
permitted outside a Home unless such pet is kept on a
leashorwithinanenclosedportionoftheyard”The
defendant’s discovery revealed that the subject Rott-
weiler escaped from his leash while being walked by the
dog owner who, along with the Rottweiler, was residing
at the third-party defendants’ house on the date of the
incident, with the third-party defendants’ knowledge and
permission. The defendant argued that the proximate
cause of the plaintiff’s damage were the acts and/or
omissions of the third-party defendants’ guest in failing to
properly secure and restrain the dog and that the duties
alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint to have been
breached by the defendant development were the
responsibility of the third-party defendants, pursuant to
the Declaration.
Prior to trial, the parties settled the claim as to the third-
party defendants and the matter went to trial as to the
defendant condominium community and its manage-
ment company.
The jury found negligence on the part of the defendant
condominium community and its management com-
pany equally and no negligence by the dog owner. The
jury awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of
$172,500 broken down as follows: $127,500 in past
medical expenses; $15,000 in future medical expenses;
$15,000 in past loss of earnings; $0 in future loss of earn-
ings; $15,000 in past non-economic damages and $0
in future non-economic damages.
REFERENCE
Brandon vs. Silver Palms by Lennar Community Associa-
tion, Inc. et al. Case no. 2019-03 693 6-CA-01; Judge
William Thomas, 05-18-22.
Attorney for plaintiff: Yeemee Chan of Steinger,
Greene & Feiner in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Attorney for
defendant: Steven Hemmert of Law Office of David S.
Lefton in Plantation, FL.
COMMENTARY
Following the verdict, the defendants filed a Motion for Directed
Verdict on Future Damages. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.480, the
defendants asked the court to strike that portion of the jury verdict
relating to future medical expenses in accordance with the defen-
dants’ motion for directed verdict made during trial. The defendant
argued that, in his case in chief, the plaintiff presented the testi-
mony of only one medical expert who testified via video deposition.
The plaintiff’s expert testified that he performed an arthroscopic
surgery on the plaintiff to repair a torn labrum. As to future medi-
cal care, the plaintiff’s expert testified that he will need follow-up
that could include anything from X-rays to follow-up the arthro-
scopic surgeries to clean out scar tissue, or possibly, if post-trau-
matic arthrosis develops, a possible joint replacement. When asked
about specific costs of future treatment, the plaintiff’s expert stated,
“I have an idea, uh, but, uh, like I said, I – I cannot, uh, tell, uh,
exactly what is going to be needed in this case.” At the close of the
evidence, the defendants moved for directed verdict, arguing that
the plaintiff had not proven that future medical expenses will be
more probable than not to occur. The motion was denied, with the
court finding that the plaintiff’s expert’s opinions regarding future
medicalcareweresufficientfortheissuetogotothejury.
The defendants renewed their motion post-trial arguing that the
plaintiff failed to establish that he is reasonably certain to incur
any medical expenses in the future. There was no testimony what-
soever that future care or treatment would be “reasonably certain”
or “more probable than not.” Therefore, the plaintiff failed to meet
his burden of establishing that future medical expenses will more
probably than not be incurred per Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So. 3d
805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), citing Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v.
Tompkins, 651 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1995) and Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.
2d 185 (Fla. 1953). The defendants’ motion is pending.
DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – OB/GYN NEGLIGENCE – ALLEGED
LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT – CLAIMED UNNECESSARY AND NEGLIGENTLY
PERFORMED GYNECOLOGICAL SURGERY – PHYSICAL DEFORMITY – NEUROLOGICAL
DEFICITS – SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION.
Palm Beach County, FL
This medical malpractice action arose from the
defendant doctor’s performance of the excisions
of multiple vulvar lesions on the plaintiff. The
plaintiff claimed that during the procedure, an
additional surgery (a labiaplasty of the bilateral
inner labia minora) was unnecessarily and
negligently performed by the defendant without
her informed consent. The entity which handles
administrative and billing functions for the
defendant’s practice group was also named as a
defendant, but settled prior to trial. The defendant
doctor maintained that he properly obtained the
8 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS
Volume 32, Issue 8, August 2022 Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT