MANUEL DEL CANAL, APPELLANT,
v.
GERARDO SANTOS, M.D., 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.
A medical malpractice plaintiff appealed a post-trial directed verdict entered in favor of a general practitioner defendant. The court affirmed, finding no expert testimony established that the defendant's treatment fell below the applicable standard of care and no evidence of causation.
The court affirmed the directed verdict and cost/attorney's fee judgment, holding that no expert testimony was adduced establishing that Dr. Santos' treatment fell below the applicable standard of care, and no evidence showed he participated in or was responsible for the allegedly premature discharge that caused the plaintiff's damages.
[1] A directed verdict for a defendant in a medical malpractice action is proper when the plaintiff fails to adduce expert testimony establishing that the defendant's treatme…
[2] A directed verdict for a defendant in a medical malpractice action is proper when there is no evidence that the defendant committed any act of malpractice that proximatel…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“no expert testimony was adduced below that Dr. Santos' treatment of the plaintiff fell below the applicable standard of care in the community”
Establishes the core basis for affirming the directed verdict—absence of expert testimony on breach of standard of care
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManuel Del Canal brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Gerardo Santos, a general practitioner. The plaintiff was hospitalized and allegedly…
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.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Manuel Del Canal from (a) an adverse final judgment and (b) an adverse cost and attorney’s fee judgment entered below in favor of the defendant Gerardo Santos, M.D. in a medical malpractice action. The central point raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in entering a post-trial directed verdict in favor of the defendant Dr. Santos, which, it is urged, requires the succeeding cost and attorney’s fee judgment to fall as well. We disagree and affirm.
Our review of the record reveals that no expert testimony was adduced below that Dr. Santos’ treatment of the plaintiff fell below the applicable standard of care in the community; we have not overlooked the plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, but find them unpersuasive. Moreover, there was no evidence adduced below that Dr. Santos, a general practitioner, participated with other doctors, including a heart specialist, in the decision to discharge the plaintiff prematurely from the hospital so that the plaintiff could raise enough cash to pay for a medically required heart operation — which premature discharge brought on a heart attack suffered by the plaintiff shortly thereafter. Accordingly, there was no evidence adduced below that the defendant Dr. Santos committed any act of medical malpractice in this case which proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages, and, accordingly, the trial court properly entered a directed verdict in favor of the said defendant. See Hunt v. Gerber, 166 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Memorial Hospital, South Broward Hospital District v. Doring, 106 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). This being so, the judgment of costs and attorney’s fees was also properly entered below in favor of the defendant Dr. Santos. §§ 57.041, 768.56, Fla.Stat. (1983).
The final judgment entered upon the directed verdict herein and the judgment of costs and attorney’s fees are, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leon v. Gregory FOX, D.O., 791 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…y presented against the appellee in this respect. Robbins v. Newhall, 692 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1997); Doctors Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Evans, 543 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Del Canal v. Santos, M.D., 495 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Weems, M.D. v. Dawson, 352 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1221 (Fla.1978); Memorial Hosp. v. Doring, 106 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). (b) While there was testimony that certain antibiotics were presc…
Authorities Cited
- Mem'l Hosp. v. Otto Doring, 106 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- City OF Coral Gables v. R. L. Stokes Paint Distribs., 166 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Hunt v. Gerber, 166 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)