TEICHNER & MELLA, P.A., RONALD TEICHNER, M.D., AND ENRIQUE MELLA, M.D., APPELLANTS,
v.
PATRICE BUTLER, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS PATRICIA FULTON AND ANTHONY BUTLER, AND PATRICIA FULTON, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
In this medical malpractice appeal, physicians Teichner and Mella challenged a jury verdict finding them liable for negligent prenatal care. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred in denying motions for directed verdict on causation and informed consent, and in denying a motion for new trial based on alleged evidentiary errors.
The court affirmed the judgment on all three issues. The trial court did not err in denying the directed verdict motion on causation because ample evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence and causation. Any error regarding informed consent was harmless because the jury found the defendants liable for general medical negligence independent of the informed consent claim. Any evidentiary errors were harmless or non-existent.
[1] A jury verdict on causation in a medical malpractice action will not be overturned on appeal if there was ample evidence presented to establish negligence and that such n…
[2] An error in failing to direct a verdict on the issue of informed consent is harmless when a jury separately finds the defendant liable for general medical negligence, and…
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“To upset the verdicts returned below on the causation issue, as urged, would require us to re-weigh and reevaluate the evidence in the record on appeal and to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact; we are specifically prohibited from engaging in such a process.”
Establishes the appellate court's standard of review on jury verdict challenges, prohibiting reweighing of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants provided prenatal treatment to Patricia Fulton. The jury found the defendants negligent in their prenatal treatment and determined that…
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 Evidentiary Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants Teichner & Mella, P.A., Ronald Teichner, M.D. and Enrique Mella, M.D. from a final judgment which was entered below based on an adverse jury verdict in a medical malpractice action. The defendants raise three points on appeal; we affirm.
First, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict on the issue of causation. We disagree. Without burdening this opinion with the detailed recitation of the facts adduced below, suffice it to say that ample evidence was presented to the jury tending to establish (1) that the defendants were negligent in their prenatal treatment of the plaintiff Patricia Fulton, and (2) that such negligence was a substantial, contributing cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. To upset the verdicts returned below on the causation issue, as urged, would require us to re-weigh and reevaluate the evidence in the record on appeal and to substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact; we are specifically prohibited from engaging in such a process. See, e.g., Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 349 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Brown v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 521 So. 2d 143, 146 (Fla. 4th DCA1988); Mt. Sinai Hosp. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Medina, 484 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA1986); City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA1985); Singleton v. West Volusia Hosp. Auth., 442 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA1983); Schwab v. Tolley, 345 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA1977).
Second, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for directed verdict on the issue of informed consent. The jury by special interrogatory verdict found the defendants guilty of general medical negligence, separate and apart from the issue of informed consent. Assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendants on the issue of informed consent, the final judgment is fully supported by the jury’s special interrogatory finding on the issue of general medical negligence; the error, if any, in failing to direct a verdict for the defendants on the informed consent issue was, accordingly, harmless under the two-issue rule. See Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1978); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Sitomer, 524 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA1988), quashed on other grounds sub nom., Smith v. Sitomer, 550 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1989).
Third, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial based on two alleged evidentiary errors. The first of these claimed evidentiary errors was, according to the defendants, highly prejudicial to them on the issue of informed consent. Because the jury found for the plaintiffs on the issue of general medical negligence apart from the issue of informed consent, the evidentiary error, if any, was entirely harmless. See DiGuilio v. State, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986); Tollefson v. State, 525 So. 2d 957, 961 (Fla. 1st DCA1988); Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Magnuson, 288 So. 2d 302, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 297 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1974); Stecher v. Pomeroy, 244 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA), writ discharged, 253 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1971); § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1989). The second of the claimed evidentiary errors presents, in our view, no error at all. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Miami v. Wylie, 46 So. 2d 396, 400 (Fla.1950); Brown v. State, 550 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1990); see Ephrem v. Phillips, 99 So. 2d 257, 263 (Fla. 1st DCA1957) (on rehearing). The defendants’ motion for new trial was, therefore, properly denied.
The final judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 871 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…a product into the marketplace which was unreasonably dangerous to the user. The jury found in Jones’ favor on both counts. Thus, there must be insufficient evidence on both counts to support a directed verdict. See Teichner & Mella, P.A. v. Butler, 600 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Under Florida law expert opinions involving “new or novel scientific techniques” must meet the test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). See Spann v. State, 857 So. 2d 845, 852 (Fla. 2003). This t…
-
Apgar & Markham Constr. OF Fla., Inc. v. Apgar, 678 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Teichner & Mella, P.A. v. Butler, 600 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Crabtree Constr. Co., 283 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).…
-
Gillian Lord Breakspeare v. Lord, 785 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Teichner & Mella, P.A. v. Butler, 600 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Akers v. Akers, 582 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (21 total)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Doyle Wayne Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 253 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1971)
- First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Wylie, 46 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1950)
- Schwab v. Tolley, 345 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Ephrem v. Phillips, 99 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Sitomer, 524 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Caraballoso v. State, 550 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)