MICHAEL GREGORY KATOS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT B. CUSHING, D.D.S. AND ROBERT B. CUSHING, D.D.S., P.A., 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 affirmed a dental malpractice judgment, finding no harmful error in evidentiary rulings because excluded evidence was cumulative and admitted testimony was not prejudicial, and the jury verdict was supported by competent evidence.
Evidentiary errors in a dental malpractice trial do not warrant reversal when the excluded evidence is cumulative and the jury verdict is supported by competent and substantial evidence.
[1] Evidentiary error in a malpractice trial is harmless when the excluded evidence is cumulative and the jury verdict is supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plaintiff brought a dental malpractice action against a dentist, alleging that negligent actions caused a delay in seeking surgical attention that r…
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 Harmful Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The test for harmful error is whether, but for such error, a different result may have been reached. Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259, 1267 n. 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the alleged erroneous evidentiary rulings did not affect the outcome in this dental malpractice action. The evidence excluded was essentially cumulative, and the admitted medical testimony challenged here was not so prejudicial as to destroy the jury’s impartiality. For these reasons, a new trial is not warranted. See Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jefferson Disposal Co. v. Green, 311 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Competent and substantial evidence was presented from which the jury could have concluded, in its general verdict, that the plaintiff was not lulled into a six month delay in seeking surgical attention owing to negligent actions on the part of the defendant doctor, or that the delay in seeking surgical intervention was not a cause of the injury. Because no harmful error is shown, and the jury verdict is supported by competent evidence, there are no grounds for reversal. Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Special v. Ivo Baux, M.D., 79 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…elated questions as applied to civil cases: fundamental error occurs when the result would have been different; reversible error, when the result might have been different; harmless error, when it would not have been different. In Katos v. Cushing, 601 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), this “tentative suggestion” morphed into persuasive authority for the proposition that “[t]he test for harmless error is whether, but for the error, a different result may have been reached.” Katos in turn has often been cit…1 / 2
-
Herbello v. Perez, 754 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the alleged erroneous evidentiary ruling did not affect the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the error, if any, was harmless. § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1999); Ratos v. Cushing, 601 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(holding that in a civil case the “test for harmful error is whether, but for such error, a different result may have been reached.”). Affirmed.…
-
Chrysler v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 627 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…a fair hearing would appear to be the harmless error test generally applied in civil cases.4 An error is [*35] harmful where there is a reasonable probability a different result would have been reached but for the error committed. Katos v. Cushing, 601 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Damico v. Lundberg, 379 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (citing Stecher v. Pomeroy, 253 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla.1971)), cert. denied, 389 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.1980). While there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marks v. Delcastillo, 386 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Jefferson Disposal Co., Inc. v. Art Green, 311 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Gerda L. Kennedy and Robert A. Kennedy v. Brago, 544 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)