HELEN BENNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT P. RIGGS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment in medical malpractice case, holding that an expert affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment even without detailed medical explanation of causation.
Summary judgment is improper in medical malpractice cases when the plaintiff's expert affidavit creates a material factual dispute regarding negligence, even absent detailed medical explanation of causation.
[1] In medical malpractice actions, summary judgment is disfavored and the moving party must conclusively prove the absence of factual issues and overcome all reasonable infe…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Summary judgments are not favored in medical malpractice suits.”
Opening statement of legal principle governing the case.
Helen Bennett sued Dr. Robert Riggs for medical malpractice, alleging that the drug Butazolidin Alka caused her vision loss. Dr. Riggs moved for summa…
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 Competency Of Expert Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this medical malpractice action, we reverse the summary judgment rendered against plaintiff Helen Bennett.
Summary judgments are not favored in medical malpractice suits. McCoy v. Hoffmeister, 435 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving the absence of factual issues. He must prove this conclusively and, through such proof, overcome all reasonable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Werber v. Imperial Golf Club, Inc., 413 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The opposing party’s right to trial should not be foreclosed if it has not been shown that he cannot offer proof to support his position. Holl v. Talcott; McCoy v. Hoffmeister. Here, the affidavit of Dr. Nagas-wami, filed by appellant in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, creates an issue of material fact with respect to the negligence of Dr. Riggs. Although the affidavit offers no medical explanation as to how the drug Butazolidin Alka caused or contributed to appellant’s vision loss, appel-lee, as the moving party, has not demonstrated that appellant cannot prove her claim of negligence. Nor has appellee conclusively established that Dr. Nagaswami is not competent to testify under section 768.45, Florida Statutes (1983). See Curry v. Cape Canaveral Hospital, 426 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); McCoy v. Hoffmeister. REVERSED and REMANDED.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- McCOY v. Hoffmeister, 435 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Curry v. Cape Canaveral Hosp. & William F. Addington, M.D., 426 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Werber v. Imperial Golf Club, Inc., 413 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)