JACK M. MEZRAH, M.D., AND MEZRAH, COHEN AND SAPHIER, P.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
LILLIE GRACE BEVIS, 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.
In this medical malpractice case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict finding a gynecologist liable for failing to diagnose breast cancer. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that expert testimony on standard of care was improper and that causation evidence was speculative.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the expert testimony was properly admitted and that there was competent evidence establishing causation. The evidence showed that absent the breach of the standard of care, the plaintiff's breast cancer would more likely than not have been completely cured.
[1] A pathologist may provide expert testimony regarding the standard of care in a medical malpractice action for failure to diagnose breast cancer.
[2] Competent expert testimony is sufficient to establish causation in a medical malpractice action, even if the defendant argues the evidence is speculative.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“that had defenants not breached the standard of care, plaintiff's breast cancer "more likely than not" would have been completely cured”
Establishes the standard for proving causation in medical malpractice—that timely diagnosis would more likely than not have resulted in cure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against a gynecologist and his professional association for failing to diagnose breast cancer. Expe…
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
LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.
In this medical malpractice action the defendants, a gynecologist and his professional association, appeal a final judgment entered on a jury verdict finding them liable to plaintiff for failing to diagnose breast cancer. We affirm.
As to defendants’ first argument that the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony from a pathologist that defendants breached the standard of care, we conclude that there was no error. See § 766.102(2)(c)2, Fla.Stat. (1989). Also, there was additional competent testimony from another expert to that effect.
As to defendants’ second argument, we do not agree that the evidence on the issue of causation was merely speculative. There was competent expert testimony which, as we have said, was not improperly allowed that had defenants not breached the standard of care, plaintiff’s breast cancer “more likely than not” would have been completely cured. See Gooding v. University Hospital Building, Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla.1984).
Noor v. Continental Casualty Co., 508 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), in which this court affirmed a judgment for defendants in a medical malpractice case based upon the alleged failure to timely diagnose breast cancer, is distinguishable. Damages were sought in that case on the alleged basis that Mrs. Noor’s life expectancy had been shortened due to a delay of several months in failing to diagnose her cancer. This court pointed out that her life expectancy had been shortened as a result of the disease even if the disease had been correctly diagnosed by defendant doctor at the first opportunity. The plaintiffs in that case did not prove causation because they did not produce any “nonspeculative evidence as to what extent, if any, [defendant doctor’s] failure to immediately diagnose her disease added to Mrs. Noor’s decreased life expectancy.” Id. at 365. On the other hand, plaintiff in this case apparently sought damages on a different basis, i.e., that had the breast cancer been timely diagnosed, she more likely than not would have been cured. As noted above, she produced sufficient evidence in that regard.
Affirmed.
THREADGILL, J., and McDONALD, RANDALL G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wroy v. N. Miami Med. Ctr., Ltd., 937 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ot” 65,% chance of reoccurrence of cancer based on negligent diagnosis of breast cancer). Wroy did not submit any evidence that the defendants’ failure to immediately diagnose Wroy’s breast cancer decreased her life expectancy. See Mezrah v. Bevis, 593 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Noor v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 508 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Even assuming.the defendants were negligent, Wroy has not shown any damages. At this point, all the damages Wroy seeks are speculative based on the possibility that the…
-
Green v. Richard I. Goldberg, M.D., 630 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…he was not an operating surgeon. Despite impressive credentials, the trial court had excluded testimony on the basis that “a doctor who does not do surgery cannot be permitted to ‘sit in judgment’ of a surgeon.” Id. at 661. See also Mezrah v. Bevis, 593 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (pathologist properly permitted to testify that defendant breached the standard of care in a case against a gynecologist who failed to diagnose breast cancer). Turning to this case, Dr. Singer is an oncologist. Oncology is the ve…
Authorities Cited
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1984)
- Rudolph v. State, 508 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Noor v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 508 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)