DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE - DELAY IN REPORTING - PLAINTIFF PRESENTS FOR LUMBAR DISC FUSION SURGERY AND SUFFERS DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTOPERATIVE EPIDURAL HEMATOMA - PERMANENT WEAKNESS OF LOWER EXTREMITIES WITH LOSS OF BOWEL AND BLADDER CONTROL - DEFENDANT HOSPITAL AND STAFF DENY DEVIATIONS IN STANDARD OF CARE AND ARGUE PLAINTIFF'S TREATING SURGEON RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATION AND CARE.

• Pages: 11-12

high risk of failure and infection; failing to properly warn

the plaintiff of the substantial risks of failure and infection

given her age and comorbidities; failing to provide

competent follow-up care secondary to the post-surgi-

cal infection and complications; and failing to meet the

standard of care for podiatrists in the community.

The elective joint replacement surgery recommended

and performed by the defendant failed and became

infected, resulting in several required subsequent surger-

ies and leaving the plaintiff with permanent and severe

injury and disfigurement. The plaintiff suffered perma-

nent aggravation of a pre-existing condition, significant

scarring, mental anguish, loss of ability to enjoy life, in-

convenience, medical bills and painful medical care

and treatment attendant to her injuries. The plaintiff

maintained that the condition in which she was left by

the surgery has made certain aspects of her job as a

real estate agent difficult or impossible.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff’s care all fell

within reasonable treatment of her presenting issue,

even given her diabetes. The defendant pointed to the

fact that many diabetic patients undergo surgery and

that they are considered viable surgical patients within

parameters which the plaintiff met.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-

fendant and awarded damages in the amount of

$188,600 broken down as follows: $46,000 in medical

expenses; $124,000 in past non-economic damages

and $18,600 in future non-economic damages.

REFERENCE

Sprague vs. Bell. Case no. CACE19012721; Judge

Fabienne Fahnestock, 03-04-22.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Michael K. Grife and Tiffany

M. Fanelli of The Grife Law Firm, P.A. in Boca Raton,

FL. Attorney for defendant: Wilbert R. Vancol of

McEwan, Martinez, Dukes & Hall, P.A. in Orlando, FL.

COMMENTARY

Following the verdict, the defendant filed a motion for new trial ar-

guing that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evi-

dence; that the court erred in not allowing the defendants to use

the informed consent medical records signed by the plaintiff; that

the court erred in not granting a Binger objection; allowing plain-

tiff’s counsel to publish portions of deposition testimony; and make

improper references in closing arguments. The defendant claimed

the prejudice caused by the ruling against the defendant’s ability to

use informed consent records was exacerbated with the court lim-

ited questions that could be asked of all witnesses regarding “in-

formed consent.” The defendant held that evidentiary error such as

this permits a trial court to grant a motion for new trial per State,

Dept. of Health & Rehab. Services v. Arnold By & Through

Bissonnette, 670 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) which held that a

new trial was warranted when the trial court impermissibly

excluded relevant, admissible evidence.

The defendant maintained that the court also erred in not grating

the defendant’s Binger objection and in excluding testimony from

the defendant’s expert regarding why cultures taken by the defen-

dant were negative, citing Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d

1310 (Fla. 1981). Further error occurred, according to the defen-

dant, when in closing argument, plaintiff’s attorney published por-

tions of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s treating

endocrinologist, in direct violation of the court order the previous

day and when plaintiff’s counsel several times improperly argued

in terms of himself as “I would” and “I like.”

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE – DELAY

IN REPORTING – PLAINTIFF PRESENTS FOR LUMBAR DISC FUSION SURGERY AND

SUFFERS DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF POSTOPERATIVE EPIDURAL

HEMATOMA – PERMANENT WEAKNESS OF LOWER EXTREMITIES WITH LOSS OF

BOWEL AND BLADDER CONTROL – DEFENDANT HOSPITAL AND STAFF DENY

DEVIATIONS IN STANDARD OF CARE AND ARGUE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING SURGEON

RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATION AND CARE.

Palm Beach County, FL

In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff

asserted that the defendant hospital and its

employees or agents deviated from the standard

of care in their treatment of the plaintiff, resulting

in significant, permanent injury. The plaintiff’s

treating neurosurgeon and practice were

dismissed from the suit and the case proceeded

only as to the hospital and its staff. The defendant

denied negligence and argued that the plaintiff’s

neurosurgeon was responsible for the treatment

and procedures performed or not performed on

the plaintiff and that the defendant was not

responsible for the acts or omissions of the

neurosurgeon because he was not an agent or

employee of the defendant hospital.

In August 2017, the plaintiff was referred to a neurosur-

geon for back pain. The plaintiff’s neurosurgeon recom-

mended 3-level lumbar disc fusion. On October 27,

2017, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospi-

tal for the surgery. Following the surgery, the plaintiff suf-

fered an epidural hematoma resulting from the surgical

procedure and a delay on the part of the defendant

and its staff.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendants negligently

failed to perform frequent and thorough neurological

examinations, especially on October 29, 2017; negli-

gently failed to recognize the significance of the plain-

tiff’s abnormal neurological assessments including being

unable to stand with assistance; failed to timely advo-

cate for appropriate care in light of the plaintiff’s abnor-

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 11

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now