OTIS J. MCDUFFIE, APPELLANT/PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN W. URIBE, M.D., APPELLEE/RESPONDENT
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.
McDuffie appeals a trial court's grant of a new trial in a medical malpractice case where he had obtained a jury verdict in his favor. The court affirms the new trial order, finding that cumulative trial errors—including improper use of a textbook, improper steroid inferences, and improper closing arguments—fundamentally deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial, as the complained-of errors cumulatively rose to the level where they permeated the entire trial and were fundamental, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The petition for writ of prohibition was denied.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a new trial when cumulative errors at trial deprive a party of a fair trial.
[2] A trial court's order granting a new trial may be affirmed when the errors complained of cumulatively rose to a level where they permeated the entire trial and were funda…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the complained of errors cumulatively rose to the level where they permeated the entire trial and were fundamental so as to deprive the appellee, Dr. Uribe, of a fair trial”
Establishes the standard for when a trial court may properly grant a new trial based on cumulative errors
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcDuffie obtained a jury verdict in his favor in a medical malpractice case against Dr. Uribe. During trial, the plaintiff improperly used a textbook …
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 New Trial Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
Otis J. McDuffie appeals the grant of a motion for new trial and petitions for a writ of prohibition to restrain the trial judge from presiding on the case and to quash the order granting a new trial. We affirm the order below granting a new trial and deny the petition for writ of prohibition.
After a malpractice jury verdict in favor of the appellant, Otis J. McDuffie, the trial judge, granted a motion for new trial on grounds of improper use of a textbook during direct and cross examination at trial, improper inference concerning the use of steroids and improper comments in closing argument. An appeal was taken from the trial court’s order. This Court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of an order specifying the particular grounds that served as a basis for the trial *948court’s order granting a new trial. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(f). In compliance, the trial court filed an order granting new trial and stated the court’s grounds supporting the grant of a new trial. McDuffie filed a petition for writ of prohibition to prohibit the trial judge from presiding over the case and to quash the new trial order filed in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(f). The parties filed a second set of briefs, and oral argument was rescheduled.
After this Court’s consideration of all of the issues presented on appeal, we conclude the complained of errors cumulatively rose to the level where they permeated the entire trial and were fundamental so as to deprive the appellee, Dr. Uribe, of a fair trial. We therefore do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion by ordering a new trial. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1998). Accordingly, we affirm the order below and remand for a new trial. See § 90.706, Florida Statutes (2011); Linn v. Fossum, 946 So.2d 1032 (Fla.2006), and cases cited at 1039; Griffith v. Shamrock Vill., 94 So.2d 854 (Fla.1957); City of Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Janoff, 901 So.2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Cedars Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Ravelo, 738 So.2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Kaas v. Atlas Chem. Co., 623 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Mitchell, 407 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Affirmed1; petition for writ of prohibition denied.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Before SUAREZ, ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied without prejudice to raise the issue of prejudgment interest should an appeal be taken from the retrial of this matter.
SUAREZ, J.
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied without prejudice to raise the issue of prejudgment interest should an appeal be taken from the retrial of this matter.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O.J. McDuffie v. John W. Uribe, M.D. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…fault, which was improperly injected into the first trial.2 The trial court granted the motion in limine and the case proceeded to trial, yielding a defense verdict. 1 The order granting a new trial was affirmed by this Court in McDuffie v. Uribe, 133 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). 2 Prior to the first trial, summary judgment had been entered in favor of Dr. Mills; thus, he was exonerated from fault. See Crowell v. Kaufmann, 845 So. 2d 325, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “Because the trial court determined as a…
Authorities Cited
- Griffith v. Shamrock Vill., Inc., 94 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1957)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Myrda Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1998)
- Linn v. Basil D. Fossum, M.D., 946 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2006)
- Kaas v. Atlas Chem. Co., 623 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. & Fla. Patients' Comp. Fund v. Mitchell, 407 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- City OF Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Cedars Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Ravelo, 738 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Suzette Ahrendt Janoff, 901 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Intelistaf Healthcare, Inc. v. Lanette Gervato and Ron Condren, 91 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)