AGUSTIN GRANADA, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
EYDA MARTINEZ, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dr. Granada obtained a jury verdict in his favor in a medical malpractice action, but the trial court granted a new trial two months later, finding the verdict shocking to the judicial conscience. The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion because the record contained expert testimony supporting Dr. Granada's standard of care and the trial court failed to articulate a proper basis for overturning the jury verdict.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. The record contained expert medical testimony, other than appellant's, supporting that Dr. Granada's treatment did not fall below the applicable standard of care, and the trial court failed to disclose any proper factual basis for finding the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, or sympathy.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial based on a subjective assessment that the jury's verdict "shocked the judicial conscience" without specific fi…
[2] A trial court's order granting a new trial must be supported by the record, and cannot be based on unsubstantiated claims or representations in a motion for new trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This court finds that the verdict of the jury shocked the judicial conscience of this Court so the Court is of the opinion that said verdict was based upon passion, prejudice, sympathy, or some other consideration outside of the evidence”
The trial court's stated basis for granting the new trial, which the appellate court found insufficiently supported by the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Granada was a defendant in a medical malpractice action brought by Ms. Martinez. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Granada.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Two months after the jury returned a verdict for the appellant in this medical malpractice action, the trial court, prior to the availability of the trial transcript and buttressed by representations in the motion for new trial, entered an order granting a new trial, stating in part:
* * sfs * * *
2. During the pendency of the trial all medical expert testimony, with the exception of the Defendant himself, testified that the Defendant fell below the standards of care in this community in his treatment of the Plaintiff for a period of time with an untreated condition which caused her great discomfort.
3. This court finds that the verdict of the jury shocked the judicial conscience of this Court so the Court is of the opinion that said verdict was based upon passion, prejudice, sympathy, or some other consideration outside of the evidence, or that the jury failed to understand, weigh or consider force and credability [sic] of the evidence, or failed to follow or understand the charges of this Court, (emphasis added).
Upon examination of the record and briefs, we determine that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. The trial transcript is replete with expert medical testimony, other than appellant’s, that Dr. Granada’s treatment of the appellee did not fall below the standard of care provided by like physicians in the community. Neither the record nor the order granting a new trial discloses upon what basis the trial court determined that the jury was influenced by outside considerations. See Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1970).
The order granting a new trial is reversed. The cause is remanded to the trial court to reinstate the jury verdict. The trial court shall assess reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jerrold Young, M.D. v. Fern Altenhaus, 448 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…al by Dr. Chamuel from the final judgment on the jury verdict, Chamuel v. Altenhaus, 421 So. 2d 527 (Fla.App. 3d DCA 1982), was ordered dismissed upon the filing by the appellant of a notice of voluntary dismissal. . See, e.g., Granada v. Martinez, 414 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), directing the award of attorney’s fees and costs upon remand of a medical malpractice action after appeal reversing new trial order and directing reinstatement of jury verdict.…
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1970)