ANTHONY BUTLER, APPELLANT,
v.
TEICHNER & MELLA, P.A., RONALD TEICHNER, M.D., ENRIQUE MELLA, M.D., AND BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC., 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 held that the objection regarding the notice of intent to sue was not waived, and the post-trial ruling requiring a separate notice for a derivative claim was erroneous.
Plaintiff's father filed a derivative claim for loss of companionship after a jury verdict in a medical malpractice suit. No separate notice of intent…
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 Loss Of Companionship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Butler, plaintiff below, appeals a post-trial order entering judgment in favor of defendants in a personal injury ac tion. Anthony Butler, the father of Patrice Butler, made a derivative claim for loss of his child’s companionship, support, and services. The claim was asserted in a suit alleging serious injury to the daughter owing to medical malpractice. Timely notices of intent to sue were submitted on behalf of the mother and daughter under section 768.57, Florida Statutes (1987), but no notice of intent was filed on Anthony Butler’s behalf. After a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, on post-trial motion the trial court concluded that the absence of a separate notice of intent was fatal to Anthony Butler’s claim.
Butler contends that appellees’ objection regarding his notice of intent was not properly made below and that the issue was therefore waived. After review of the record, we conclude that the objection was not waived.
However, turning to the merits, we conclude that the post-trial ruling with respect to the notice of intent to sue must be reversed under authority of Chandler v. Novak, 596 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (en banc). The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tapia v. State, 650 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…R CURIAM. Affirmed. See Maqueira v. State, 588 So. 2d 221 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1961, 118 L.Ed.2d 563 (1992); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Portu v. State, 651 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Munoz v. State, 599 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).…
Authorities Cited
- Chandler v. Fred J. Novak, D.D.S., 596 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)