MOISE LAMOUR
v.
MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC
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 Florida court affirmed a dismissal in a medical negligence case involving lack of informed consent. The court applied Florida statutory and case law establishing that a plaintiff must prove a reasonably prudent person would not have consented to treatment had material risks been disclosed, and that negligence must have probably caused the injury.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that under Florida law, a plaintiff cannot recover for lack of informed consent merely by testifying they would not have consented; instead, the plaintiff must present evidence that a reasonably prudent person would not have consented had the material risks been disclosed, and must prove the negligence probably caused the injury.
[1] In an informed consent action under Florida law, the plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that a reasonably prudent person, not the plaintiff persona…
[2] Proof of medical negligence requires more than a showing that an injury 'could have' resulted from the defendant's action; the plaintiff must establish that the negligenc…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“It is not enough for the plaintiff to testify that he would not have consented had a specific, material disclosure been made; he must present evidence 'that a reasonably prudent person would not have consented to the procedure had the material risks been disclosed.'”
Court citing Santa Lucia v. LeVine on the proper standard for informed consent claims.
A patient brought an action against a physician alleging treatment, examination, or surgery was performed without informed consent. The case involved …
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 Informed Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 766.103(3)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing in pertinent part: “No recovery shall be allowed in any court in this state against any physician licensed under chapter 458[] . . . in an action brought for treating, examining, or operating on a patient without his or her informed consent when. . . the patient would reasonably, under all the surrounding circumstances, have undergone such treatment or procedure had he or she been advised by the physician. . . in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a)); Santa Lucia v. LeVine, 198 So. 3d 803, 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“It is not enough for the plaintiff to testify that he would not have consented had a specific, material disclosure been made; he must present evidence ‘that a reasonably prudent person would not have consented to the procedure had the material risks been disclosed.’”) (quoting Ritz v. Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund, 436 So. 2d 987, 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)); Salinertro
v. Nystrom, 341 So. 2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“Liability for
negligence depends on a showing that the injury suffered by plaintiff was caused by the alleged wrongful act or omission to act by the defendant.
Merely to show a connection between the negligence and the injury is not sufficient to establish liability.”) See also Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff's injury.”); Howell v. Balchunas, 284 So. 3d 1180, 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (affirming an order dismissing with prejudice a negligence claim, holding: “An injury that ‘could have’ been caused by a medical professional's action or an action falling below the standard of care that ‘potentially’ could have led to an injury does not, in our opinion, provide corroboration of reasonable grounds to believe that the claimed negligence ‘resulted in injury to the claimant.’”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1984)
- Ritz v. Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund, 436 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Streb v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 341 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Raymond C. Santa Lucia, Ph.D. v. Steven M. LeVINE, M.D. & LeVine Surgical Assocs., P.A., 198 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Howell v. William Balchunas, M.D., Pensacola Radiology Consultants, P.A. (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)