REGINA NAZZARO, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH P. LIROFF AND KENNETH P. LIROFF, 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 reversed a jury verdict in a legal malpractice action against an attorney, finding the plaintiff's expert testimony insufficient to establish breach of the standard of care or causation of the underlying loss.
An attorney is entitled to a directed verdict in a legal malpractice action when the plaintiff's expert testimony is unsupported by or contradicted by established facts and fails to establish breach of the standard of care or causation.
[1] In a legal malpractice action, expert testimony that is unsupported by or contradicted by established facts is insufficient to establish breach of the standard of care or…
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 intelligenceMs. Nazzaro won a jury verdict against attorney Liroff for alleged mishandling of an underlying medical malpractice case. The trial judge granted a ne…
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 For Attorneys cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ms. Nazzaro won a jury verdict in a legal malpractice action based on the defendant Liroffs alleged mishandling of the medical malpractice case we considered in Nazzaro v. Wolfe, 541 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 551 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1989). The trial judge then granted a new trial and the plaintiff has taken this appeal. We do not consider the propriety of the order granting a new trial because we find, on the cross-appeal, that Liroff was entitled to a directed verdict in his favor. In our view, the evidence — particularly the testimony of the plaintiffs legal expert whose conclusions were not supported by or were directly contrary to the established facts, see Rodriguez v. Pino, 634 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) and cases cited — was woefully insufficient to establish either that Liroff fell below the required standard of care or that any legal negligence was a cause of the loss of the underlying action. Gooding v. University Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1984); Bolves v. Hullinger, 629 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Frazier v. Effman, 501 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 374 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1979); Marcano v. Puhalovich, 362 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), dismissed, 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978); Salinetro v. Nystrom, 341 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Weiner v. Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for the appel-lees.
Remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1984)
- Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Irwin J. Weiner and Mark R. Rubin v. Nelia Moreno, 271 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Marcano v. Ante Puhalovich, 362 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Bolves v. Hullinger, 629 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Jose Rodriguez, M.D. v. Pino, 634 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Streb v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 341 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Salinetro v. Nystrom, 341 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Frazier v. Effman, 501 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Nazzaro v. S. Anthony Wolfe, M.D., 541 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)