LEON GLOTZER AND RACHEL GLOTZER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HERBERT I. MOSELLE, M.D., ET AL., 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.
The court reversed summary judgment for a doctor in a medical malpractice case, holding that affidavits alleging failure to diagnose an ear condition and expert testimony of substandard care created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Summary judgment for a defendant doctor is improper when the plaintiff submits affidavits alleging specific complaints about the condition, the doctor's assumption of care, and expert testimony that the doctor's performance fell below the standard of care.
[1] Summary judgment is improper in a medical malpractice case when the plaintiff presents affidavits establishing the defendant's assumption of care, specific complaints abo…
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 intelligenceA patient repeatedly complained to his doctor about abnormal ear drainage; the doctor agreed to serve as his family physician and examined his ears, f…
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 Failure To Diagnose cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The trial court held that a defendant doctor, allegedly negligent for failure to diagnose an ear condition, was entitled to a summary judgment because “as a matter of law there is no issue of material fact.” We reverse.
The patient, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, filed an affidavit which alleged:
1. That he had repeatedly complained to the defendant doctor about abnormal drainage from his ear. 2. That the defendant doctor had agreed to be his general treating physician saying “I’m the family doctor.”
3. That the defendant doctor had actually examined his ears and found them to be within normal limits.
In addition, an affidavit from a third party doctor stated that the defendant doctor’s performance, vis-a-vis the patient, fell below the accepted standard of care. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that genuine issues of material fact have been created.
We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings.
We do not address the question of whether the statute of limitations, as set forth in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), had run. It is clear from the Summary Final Judgment that the trial court did not base its ruling on this statute.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. Dep't OF Health & Rehab. Servs., Inc., 541 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ributing to the victim’s demise. It cannot be said, consequently, for the purpose of a summary judgment, that the defendant has demonstrated conclusively the nonexistence of a material dispute on the issue of proximate causation. Glotzer v. Moselle, 515 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Sprague v. Coral Cadillac, Inc., 515 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Fleischman v. Perez, 491 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). A trial court may not weigh contradictory depositions or affidavits on matters of fact in entering a s…