LAWRENCE H. JONES AND SANDRA JONES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN A. WHITE, M.D. AND RICHARD DEIORIO, M.D., APPELLEES
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.
Plaintiffs sued for sciatic nerve damage from hip replacement surgery and appealed the trial court's decision to allow defendants to show the jury a videotape of another successful hip replacement operation performed by one of the defendant doctors. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for defendants, finding any error in admitting the videotape was harmless.
While the videotape evidence could have been problematic because it showed a defendant doctor successfully performing a similar procedure, any error in admitting it was harmless and did not affect the trial outcome. The jury would not have naively believed that successful completion of one operation precluded negligence in another.
[1] A videotape of a medical procedure may be admissible to assist a jury in understanding the operation, even if performed by a defendant doctor.
[2] The admission of a videotape of a medical procedure is not inherently prejudicial if differences between the videotaped operation and the patient's surgery are explained.
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“by showing a defendant successfully performing a difficult medical procedure he may have been given unwarranted advantage before the jury”
The trial court's stated concern about the prejudicial impact of the videotape evidence showing a defendant doctor successfully performing surgery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Lawrence and Sandra Jones brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. John A. White and Dr. Richard Deiorio for sciatic nerve damage r…
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 Malpractice Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs prosecuted a malpractice action for sciatic nerve damage resulting from hip replacement surgery. Over plaintiffs’ objection, the court permitted the defendants to show the jury a videotape of another hip replacement operation performed by one of the defendants. In response to a motion for new trial following a verdict for the defendants, the court concluded that it had erred in permitting the showing of the videotape primarily because “by showing a defendant successfully performing a difficult medical procedure he may have been given unwarranted advantage before the jury.” Nevertheless, the court determined that the error was harmless and denied the motion.
We can see how a videotape of surgery similar to that involved in a malpractice case could assist the jury in understanding the procedure, though we appreciate the court’s concern over the fact that one of the defendant doctors conducted the videotaped operation. On this record we are convinced that any error committed in allowing the showing of the videotape could not have affected the outcome of the trial. § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1983).
We cannot accept the proposition that the jury was so naive as to believe that because the doctor successfully completed one operation, he could not have been negligent in another. The plaintiffs’ reliance on Continental Casualty Co. v. McClure, 225 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) is misplaced because that case involved a motion picture of an experiment which purported to demonstrate that the accident did not occur in the manner described by the plaintiff. In view of the many variables between the accident and the experiment, we held that the trial judge did not err in excluding the motion pictures. In the instant case, the videotape was introduced only for the purpose of illustrating the nature of the surgery involved. The differences in surgical procedure between the plaintiffs surgery and the videotaped operation were fully explained. In any event, those portions of the videotaped operation which were different were only irrelevant, not prejudicial.
Affirmed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Sissel Cooper, 485 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…their parents would have been admissible had the patients and parents been called as witnesses. We do not necessarily reverse a case solely because some irrelevant material has been received into evidence along with proper material, Jones v. White, 468 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), but in this case we find that the tape was inadmissible despite its admissible portions. Relevant evidence is inadmissible where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the confusion of…
Authorities Cited
- Cont'l Cas. Co. v. McCLURE, 225 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)