CATINA SIMMONS-RUSS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PHYLLIS SIMMONS, DECEASED, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CHOOKIERT EMKO, M.D., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 trial court properly entered a directed verdict for the defendant physician where the plaintiff's expert testimony on causation was so equivocal and internally contradictory as to lack probative value in a medical negligence action.
A directed verdict is appropriate when an expert's testimony on an essential element of a medical negligence claim is so equivocal, confusing, and internally contradictory as to utterly lack probative value.
[1] Expert testimony that is equivocal, confusing, and internally contradictory and irreconcilable may be found to utterly lack probative value, justifying entry of a directe…
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 intelligencePhyllis Simmons died and her personal representative brought a medical negligence action against Dr. Chookiert Emko, M.D. The plaintiff relied on expe…
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 Medical Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant/cross-appellee, as the personal representative of the Estate of Phyllis Simmons, appeals the trial court’s final judgment following entry of a directed verdict in favor of the appellee/cross-appellant (the defendant in the trial court), Dr. Chookiert Emko, M.D., in a medical negligence action. The cross-appeal challenges the trial court’s earlier ruling denying a motion for summary judgment. We have carefully examined the record, especially the expert testimony of Dr. Sessoms, which, according to the appellant/cross-ap-pellee, was sufficient to send the case to the jury. Where an expert’s testimony is so equivocal, confusing, and internally contradictory and irreconcilable as utterly to lack any probative value, the trial court is justified in entering a directed verdict against the party relying on that expert testimony to establish an essential element of the claim. See Jackson County Hosp. Corp. v. Aldrich, 835 So. 2d 318, 327-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); L.R. v. State, 698 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Whitten v. Erny, 152 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
Because the appellant/cross-appellee’s expert testimony failed to satisfy the requirements of Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1020 (Fla.1984), as to the essential element of causation, we conclude that the trial court correctly entered a directed verdict and final judgment in favor of the appel-lee/eross-appellant. Given our affirmance of the trial court’s directed verdict and final judgment, the issue on cross-appeal is moot.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, BROWNING and THOMAS, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westphal v. City OF ST. Petersburg/City OF ST. Petersburg Risk Mgmt., 122 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…l testimony regarding permanent injury from accident, absent “some reasonable basis in the evidence. This can include conflicting medical evidence, evidence that impeaches the expert’s testimony or calls it into question....”); Simmons-Russ v. Emko, 928 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (affirming trial court’s order granting directed verdict on issue of causation based on plaintiffs insufficient expert testimony). In addition, a JCC cannot “reject unrefut-ed medical testimony without providing sufficient r…1 / 2
-
Duclos v. Richardson, 113 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…Even if contrary expert evidence is presented, a directed verdict is justified “[wjhere an expert’s testimony is so equivocal, confusing, and internally contradictory and irreconcilable as utterly to lack any probative value.” Simmons-Russ v. Emko, 928 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). On the other hand, “the trial court may not weigh the evidence or assess a witness’s credibility” and must deny a directed verdict “if the evidence is conflicting or if different conclusions and inferences can be drawn from…
-
Robert Jeffrey Chaskes, D.O. v. Gutierrez, 116 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…Saint-Eloi was doing and why — Jaquez would have had a better than even chance of improving. Without this critical last link in the chain of evidence demonstrating causation, there was no question for the jury to consider. See Simmons-Russ v. Emko, 928 So. 2d 397, 398 (Pla. 1st DCA 2006) (“Because the appellant/cross-appel-lee’s expert testimony failed to satisfy the requirements of Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1020 (Fla.1984), as to the essential element of causation, we conclude tha…
Authorities Cited
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1984)
- Jackson Cnty. Hosp. Corp. v. Aldrich, 835 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- L.R. v. State, 698 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Whitten v. Erny, 152 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)