JUANITA MILLER AND JUANITA MILLER AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT MILLER, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTONIO COURT, M.D., AND ALEXANDER MIRANDA, 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.
In this medical malpractice appeal, Mrs. Miller challenged a judgment awarded to two physicians who allegedly caused her diabetic coma through negligent treatment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court committed multiple reversible errors in excluding critical jury instructions and admitting prejudicial evidence about Mr. Miller's alleged substance abuse.
The trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on concurring causes and aggravation of pre-existing conditions when evidence supported that the doctors' negligence combined with Mrs. Miller's pre-existing diabetes to cause her coma. The court also reversibly erred in admitting Mr. Miller's medical records, except for two letters requesting tranquilizers, because they were irrelevant and highly prejudicial, and the defense counsel's closing argument references to this inadmissible information were improper.
[1] A plaintiff is entitled to a jury instruction on concurring causes when there is evidence that the defendant's negligence combined with a pre-existing condition to cause…
[2] A plaintiff is entitled to a jury instruction on aggravation of a pre-existing condition when there is evidence that the defendant's negligent medical treatment worsened…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The standard jury instruction 5.1(b) on concurrent causes is applicable when the plaintiff's injury is caused by a doctor's negligence, acting upon and combined with the plaintiff's pre-existing physical condition.”
Establishes the legal standard for when concurrent causes instructions are required in medical malpractice cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Miller underwent medical treatment by Doctors Court and Miranda. The doctors allegedly caused her coma by removing her from diabetic medication w…
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 Negligent Medical Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is a medical malpractice action brought by Mr. and Mrs. Miller against Doctors Court and Miranda because of alleged negligent medical treatment of Mrs. Miller. After suit was filed, Mr. Miller died and the case was continued in the name of Mrs. Miller, individually, and Mrs. Miller, as personal representative of her husband’s estate.
Without detailing, there was a wealth of testimony and evidence, pro and con, presented at the jury trial. Judgment was granted in favor of the doctors and they were awarded their attorney fees. Mrs. Miller appeals. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Two of the nine issues raised by Mrs. Miller constitute reversible error. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in not giving Mrs. Miller’s requested jury instructions on concurring causes and on aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
The standard jury instruction 5.1(b) on concurrent causes is applicable when the plaintiff’s injury is caused by a doctor’s negligence, acting upon and combined with the plaintiff’s pre-existing physical condition. Goodman v. Becker, 430 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Higgins v. Johnson, 434 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); and Marrero v. Salkind, M.D., 433 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), petition for rev. denied, 444 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1984). In the instant case, there was evidence presented that Dr. Court’s alleged negligence combined with Mrs. Miller’s pre-existing diabetic condition causing her coma. Dr. Court’s negligence was alleged to be his taking Mrs. Miller off her diabetic medicine and his failing to substitute an alternative drug. This evidence entitled Mrs. Miller to an instruction on concurring causes, and the failure to give such instruction constituted reversible error. See Goodman; Higgins; and Marrero.
Moreover, Mrs. Miller was entitled to a jury instruction on aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The gravamen of Mrs. Miller’s complaint was that her coma resulted from the appellees’ negligent medical treatment which aggravated her pre-existing medical condition, diabetes. There was evidence presented at trial to support this theory, and therefore, the court’s failure to give an instruction on aggravation of a pre-existing condition was reversible error. See Mack v. Garcia, M.D., 433 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), petition for rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983); and Washewich v. LeFave, 248 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
The second issue raised was whether it was error to admit Mr. Miller’s medical records into evidence and in allowing the defense counsel to repeatedly refer to Mr. Miller’s alleged abuse of alcohol and drugs during closing argument. After reviewing the evidence, we find that it was reversible error to introduce the medical records at trial, because they were irrelevant to the case at hand, and highly prejudicial to the appellant.
Appellees argue that the information contained in Mr. Miller’s medical records was relevant to their defense that Mrs. Miller’s coma was caused by her abuse of drugs and alcohol, rather than by appellees’ medical treatment of Mrs. Miller. The medical records in question did include two letters in which Mr. Miller requested tranquilizers for Mrs. Miller. These two letters were relevant and admissible. However, none of the other information in Mr. Miller’s medical records was relevant to the appellees’ defense or to any other issue raised at trial. Accordingly, it was reversible error to admit all of Mr. Miller’s medical records into evidence at trial.
Finally, the defense counsel’s comments on Mr. Miller’s alleged abuse of alcohol and drugs during closing argument were improper. During closing argument, counsel is limited by the evidence and issues presented and the inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. Tito v. Potashnick, 488 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1986). As previously stated, evidence as to Mr. Miller’s alleged abuse of alcohol and drugs was inadmissible, being both irrelevant and highly prejudicial. Therefore, the defense counsel’s comments on this information were improper and constituted reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyka v. Halifax Hosp. Dist., 657 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…into greater or lesser degrees. All of the medical malpractice cases we have found, which hold that the failure to give the aggravation instruction was reversible error, concern injuries, not death suffered by a patient. See Auster; Miller v. Court, 510 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Appellant argues the concurring cause and intervening cause instructions were inadequate in this case. However, in medical malpractice cases where a health care provider is alleged to have caused the death of a patient, or dama…
-
Marinelli v. Grace, 608 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…here the defendant’s negligence acts in combination with plaintiff’s physical conditions to produce the resulting injury. See generally, Hawkins v. Williams, 557 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 570 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1990); Miller v. Court, 510 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 523 So. 2d 576 (Fla.1988); Tilley v. Broward Hosp. Dist., 458 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Goodman v. Becker, 430 So. 2d 560 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). In Goodman, the plaintiff’s position was that the defendant’s negli…
-
Jade Lakay Hart v. Louis Stern, M.D. & Wymore Ob/Gyn Specialists, P.A., 824 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…83), petition for review denied, 444 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1984); Goodman v. Becker, 430 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). . Zigman; Auster v. Gertrude & Philip Strax Breast Cancer Detection Inst., Inc., 649 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Miller v. Court, 510 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ("The standard jury instruction 5.1(b) on concurrent causes is applicable when the plaintiff’s injury is caused by a doctor’s negligence, acting upon and combined with the plaintiff's preexisting physical condition.”) (citin…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Washewich v. Hollie H. LeFAVE, 248 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Goodman v. Melvin Becker, D.D.S., 430 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Marrero v. Salkind, 433 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Mack v. Manual G. Garcia, M.D., 433 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Higgins v. Johnson, 434 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Tito v. R.B. Potashnick, 488 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)