FRANK BISCH
v.
KOSTIYA PEKI, M.D.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-02-07
No. 2022-0811
2024 FL 1270 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.


Holding

A plaintiff in a medical malpractice case may survive summary judgment by establishing genuine issues of material fact as to the standard of care owed and causation.


Headnotes

[1] In a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must establish three elements: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of that standard, and that th…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“To prevail in a medical malpractice case a plaintiff must establish the following: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of the standard of care, and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.”

Court citing Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) to state the elements of medical malpractice.

Facts & Procedural History

Frank Bisch sued Dr. Kostiya Peki for medical malpractice. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Peki, concluding no genuine dispute ex…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Opinion filed February 7, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0811 Lower Tribunal No. 17-693-K

________________

Frank Bisch,

Appellant,

vs.

Kostiya Peki, M.D., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge. The Law Offices of Maria L. Rubio, P.A., and Maria L. Rubio; Philip D. Parrish, P.A., and Philip D. Parrish, for appellant. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., and Dinah S. Stein and Lindsey A. Hicks; Hoffman Law Group, P.A., and Ilisa W. Hoffman, for appellee Hospital Alliance, LLC; Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., and Jessica L. Gross, for appellees Kostiya Peki, M.D., P.A. and Kostiya Peki, M.D. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Frank Bisch, the plaintiff below, appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of Kostiya Peki, M.D., and Kostiya Peki, M.D., P.A., defendants below. The trial court concluded there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and entered final judgment in favor of Peki. Upon our de novo review, Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000), we reverse, and hold that plaintiff satisfied its burden as the non-moving party to establish the presence of genuine issues of material fact, including standard of care and causation. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(c); Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“To prevail in a medical malpractice case a plaintiff must establish the following: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of the standard of care, and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.”); Chaskes v. Gutierrez, 116 So. 3d 479, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (observing: “Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.” (quoting Gooding, 445 So. 2d at 1019)). Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Zillow, Inc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)
    …esumption that it was unclaimed property. After the trial court denied his motion for rehearing, Chertok brought this appeal. [*5] Standard of Review A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). The inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury” or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. In re Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 S…
  • …n two similar and overlapping but nevertheless different analyses. In the case at hand, only the element of duty is at issue. The standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). Likewise, “[t]he determination of duty, as an element of negligence, is a question of law . . . and is therefore subject to de novo review[.]" Chirillo v. Granicz, 199 So. 3d 246, 248 (Fla. 2016). [*3] I. Negligence & Duty Generall…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw