RICHARD DILLARD, M.D., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ANN CHORONZY AND STANLEY CHORONZY, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS, HUMANA OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT/ CROSS-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.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on counsel's remarks and insufficient reasons, and that the jury's verdict finding the hospital negligent was supported by adequate basis.
A patient suffered a stroke that could have been prevented if a CAT scan had been performed as ordered. The jury found the doctor not negligent but th…
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 New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion for clarification, we withdraw our prior opinion and reissue it as follows.
This case involves an appeal and cross-appeals from an order which, inter alia, sets aside a jury verdict, grants a new trial, and denies a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a medical malpractice case. The evidence indicated that the patient, Ann Choronzy, suffered a stroke which could have been prevented had a CAT scan been performed by Humana of Florida, Inc. (a Daytona Beach hospital) as ordered by Dillard, a staff physician. We reverse those portions of the order which set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial, but affirm the order in all other respects. We find the reasons are not sufficient in this case for granting a new trial.
Upon a review of the record, we think there is a reasonable and adequate basis to support the jury’s conclusion that the doctor was not negligent but the hospital was negligent and one hundred percent liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.1 We also do not agree that counsel’s remarks (taken in context) constituted a violation of the “Golden Rule” prohibition. Even if they did, they were not so egregious as to merit a new trial. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial for that reason. See, e.g., Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla.1988); Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980).
We remand this cause to the trial court with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions.
GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . Hickman v. Employers Fire Insurance Co., 311 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Stevenson Insurance Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 228 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1981)
- THE FLA. BAR RE AMENDMENT TO RULES REGULATING THE FLA. BAR (RULE 1-4.3, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Smith v. Brown, 525 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1988)
- Hickman v. The Emp'rs' Fire Ins. Co., 311 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Stevenson Ins. Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 228 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)