KATIE SHREFFLER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARC J. PHILIPPON, M.D., HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A HOLY CROSS MEDICAL GROUP, HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, HOLY HEALTH CORPORATION, D/B/A HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, INC., AND SMITH & NEPHEW, 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.
Katie Shreffler appeals a summary judgment dismissing her products liability claim against Smith & Nephew, Inc. regarding motorized shavers used during her hip surgery. The appellate court reverses, finding a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the shavers broke inside her hip joint and caused injury.
Summary judgment was inappropriate because, when viewed in the light most favorable to Shreffler, the doctor's post-surgical operative report suggests the shavers broke inside the hip joint, and a jury could view the doctor's later contradictory testimony as self-serving. The trial court failed to properly consider the expert affidavit filed in opposition to summary judgment.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when there are genuine issues of material fact and the movant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
[2] All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party when considering a motion for summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A trial court may enter summary judgment only when there are no genuine issues of material fact conclusively shown from the record and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party, and if there is the slightest doubt or conflict in the evidence, then summary judgment is not available.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment and the requirement to resolve all doubts against the moving party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 28, 1999, Shreffler filed suit against Dr. Marc Philippon and Holy Cross Hospital for negligent injury during a hip arthroscopy. In November 2…
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 Negligent Manufacture cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Katie Shreffler appeals a final summary judgment in favor of appellee, Smith & Nephew, Inc., on a products liability claim.
We reverse, because when viewed in the light most favorable to Shreffler, the record reflects a genuine issue o,f material fact as to whether the shavers at issue caused injury to her. On July 28, 1999, Shreffler filed a complaint against Marc J. Philippon, M.D., and his employer, Holy Cross Hospital, Inc., alleging that the orthopedic surgeon had negligently injured her. On November 14, 2000, Shreffler filed an amended complaint adding Smith & Nephew, Inc. as a defendant, because it had manufactured the motorized shavers that Dr. Philippon used during Shreffler’s hip arthroscopy.
Count V of the amended complaint asserted a cause of action against Smith & Nephew for the negligent design, manufacture, and distribution of the motorized shavers, which had allegedly broken during the hip surgery. Count VI of the amended complaint asserted a strict liability cause of action, alleging that the motorized shavers used during the hip arthroscopy were unreasonably dangerous and/or defective.
A contested issue was whether the two motorized shavers were inside of Shref-fler’s hip joint at the time they broke apart. This is the issue that the trial judge identified at the summary judgment hearing as being the “big question” in ruling on the motion.
“A trial court may enter summary judgment only when there are no genuine issues of material fact conclusively shown from the record and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party, and if there is the slightest doubt or conflict in the evidence, then summary judgment is not available.” Reeves v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 821 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citation omitted). The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000).
Dr. Philippon’s post-surgical operative report, when read in the light most favorable to Shreffler, suggests that the shavers broke inside of the hip joint. A jury could view the doctor’s later contradictory testimony as a self-serving attempt to deflect liability' away from himself. We conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate without considering orthopedic surgeon Dr. Goodman’s affidavit filed by Shreffler in opposition to summary judgment. We leave it to the trial court to consider and rule on the sufficiency of Dr. Goodman’s qualifications to give the opinion expressed.
In light of our ruling on the final summary judgment, we also reverse the award of fees and taxable costs entered pursuant to an offer of judgment.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Shawanni Mobley v. Gilbert E. Hirschberg, P.A., 915 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party, and if there is the slightest doubt or conflict in the evidence, then summary judgment is not available.” Shreffler v. Philippon, 873 So. 2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Reeves v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 821 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)) (citation omitted). The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach…
-
Cameshia Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ov-ant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party, and if there is the slightest doubt or conflict in the evidence, then summary judgment is not available.” Shreffler v. Philippon, 873 So. 2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Reeves v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 821 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)) (citation omitted). “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might…
-
T.W. and K.W. v. Regal Trace, Ltd., 908 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…mmary judgment and entered an order of final summary judgment. The standard of review applicable to orders on summary judgment is de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000); Shreffler v. Philippon, 873 So. 2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a [*503] matter of law.” Aberdeen, 760 So. 2d at 130. “The duty element of negligence focuses…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Reeves v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 821 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)