ROBERT J. SINGLETON, APPELLANT,
v.
WEST VOLUSIA HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for the defendant hospital.
Plaintiff sued for medical malpractice after his appendicitis ruptured. Evidence suggested hospital staff failed to properly diagnose his condition on…
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
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
In this medical malpractice action, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs evidence. Plaintiff appeals and we reverse.
Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was evidence presented from which a jury could conclude that the employees of the defendant hospital could have diagnosed plaintiffs condition on the three occasions when he came there complaining of severe abdominal pains, had he been checked properly. There was also testimony that when plaintiffs mother called the hospital on a fourth occasion to advise that plaintiff was still experiencing severe pain, she was told not to bring him back. Plaintiff’s medical expert testified that under the circumstances, this conduct deviated from the accepted standard of medical care, and that had the proper tests been performed, plaintiffs appendicitis could have been diagnosed before his appendix ruptured. This evidence is sufficient to show a causal relationship between the alleged negligent acts of defendant and the ultimate aggravation of plaintiff’s medical condition. See Eli Witt Cigar and Tobacco Company v. Matatics, 55 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1951); Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Cubbage, 58 Fla. 287, 51 So. 139 (Fla.1910); Schwab v. Tolley, 345 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Because there was evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, upon which a verdict for plaintiff could be sustained, the entry of a directed verdict for defendant was error. Reams v. Vaughn, 435 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); American Motors Corporation v. Ellis, 403 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
DePOORTER v. Win Edward DePOORTER, 509 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…o account (1) whether the third party provides support to the recipient spouse, and (2) whether the recipient spouse contributes to the support of the third party. See Schneider v. Schneider, 467 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Stuart v. Stuart, 385 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Other factors to consider in a changed circumstances determination are: the length of the marriage, the respective parties’ contribution to the marriage, the earning capacit…
-
Markham v. Markham, 485 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…see Vazquez v. Vazquez, 443 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1984). . See Holland v. Holland, 458 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Nichols v. Nichols, 432 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). . See Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), Kissinger v. Mason, 436 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and Frye v. Frye, 385 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (rehabilitative alimony does not automatically terminate solely upon the event of receiving spouse’s remarriage); contr…
-
Sency v. Sency, 478 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ex-wife’s support, under the facts of this case the law would have provided the ex-husband a remedy other than specific enforcement of the non-residency provision. See Schneider v. Schneider, 467 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Bentzoni v. Bentzoni, 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Lambert v. Lambert, 403 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Abella-Fernandez v. Abella, 393 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We approve the trial court not terminating the exclusive possession in this instance and ordering the husband…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Motors Corp. v. Ellis, 403 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Reams v. Blanche Vaughn and Herman Vaughn, 435 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Schwab v. Tolley, 345 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics, 55 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1951)
- Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Cubbage, 58 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1909)