GERARDO CRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEXANDER ANGELIDES, M.D., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1991-02-12
No. 90-1450
Before HUBBART and BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.
574 So. 2d 278 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1991)

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.

Synopsis

Plaintiff Gerardo Cruz appeals a judgment on the pleadings dismissing his novel claim that his treating physician breached a fiduciary duty by giving favorable expert testimony for the defendant in Cruz's prior medical malpractice case. The court affirmed, holding that witnesses have absolute immunity from civil liability for testimony given in judicial proceedings.


Holding

A physician (or any witness) has absolute immunity from civil liability for testimony and sworn statements given in judicial proceedings, with perhaps a narrow exception for malicious prosecution. Therefore, Cruz has no viable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Dr. Angelides.


Headnotes

[1] A witness in a judicial proceeding is absolutely immune from civil liability for testimony or sworn statements given in the course of that proceeding.

[2] A cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty cannot be based solely on a witness's sworn pretrial affidavit and deposition testimony expressing expert medical opinion f…

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

Key Quotes

“a witness in a judicial proceeding, as here, is absolutely immune from any civil liability, save perhaps malicious prosecution, for testimony or other sworn statements which he or she gives in the course of the subject proceeding”

Establishes the foundational principle of witness immunity that defeats Cruz's claim

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Cruz sued Dr. Alexander Angelides, his treating physician, claiming breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit was based solely on Dr. Angelides providing …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Gerardo Cruz from an adverse final judgment on the pleadings in an action heretofore unrecognized under Florida law. The plaintiff Cruz sued his treating physician, the defendant Alexander Angelides, M.D., for breach of a fiduciary duty based solely on the fact that Dr.- Angelides gave a sworn pretrial affidavit and a video deposition at trial in which he expressed expert medical opinion favorable to the defendant in a prior medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiff against another medical doctor, which action resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff seeks as damages the damages which he failed to obtain in the first malpractice action. We affirm.

The law is well settled that a witness in a judicial proceeding, as here, is absolutely immune from any civil liability, save perhaps malicious prosecution, for testimony or other sworn statements which he or she gives in the course of the subject proceeding. Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Cawthon v. Coffer, 264 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Seidel v. Hill, 264 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Bencomo v. Morgan, 210 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).

This being so, it is plain that the plaintiff has no cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty against the defendant. We reaffirm the Florida Supreme Court’s observatation in Coralluzzo v. Fass, 450 So. 2d 858, 859 (Fla.1984), that “[wjhether [the defendant herein] has violated the ethical standards of his profession is a matter to be addressed by the [medical] profession itself,” rather than by the courts.

Accordingly, the final judgment on the pleadings below must be and is hereby

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw