JOHN SCANLON, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD T. LITT, M.D., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, holding that the defendant-movant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact, consistent with principles established in Holl v. Talcott decided earlier that year.
The defendant-movant did not meet its burden of demonstrating conclusively the absence of genuine issues of material fact, and the court should not have reached the question of sufficiency of plaintiff's responsive medical affidavit. Summary judgment was improper.
“the movant in this cause did not meet the burden of demonstrating conclusively the absence of genuine issues of material fact, and the question of sufficiency of plaintiffs responsive medical affidavit should never have been reached”
Establishes that defendant-movant bears the initial burden in summary judgment, which must be met before plaintiff's affidavit is even evaluated
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Scanlon suffered an injury to his left index finger and received initial treatment from defendant physician Litt. Litt referred Scanlon to a…
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 Burden cases and more on FLexlaw
Certiorari has been granted in' this cause on the ground of conflict between the decision of the district court and that of this Court in the case of Holl v. Talcott, Fla. 1966, 191 So.2d 40, opinion filed June 1, 1966, rehearing denied reversing the decision of the district court therein, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 412. Upon appeal in the case at bar the district court affirmed upon authority of its decision in Holl v. Talcott and other cases discussed in the opinion of this Court first above cited.
Final judgment in the trial court on motion for summary judgment for defendant in this medical malpractice action was based on a finding that the responsive medical affidavit filed by plaintiff “does not give rise to any genuine issue as to any material fact.” The affidavit relied on by movant, however, in this case as in Holl v. Talcott, consisted simply of a conclusion without medical explanation that the treatment in question, unspecified other than by reference to records, had no causal relationship to plaintiff’s ultimate loss of his finger by amputation, and an opinion that the defendant physician’s care fell within the standards “for similar practitioners under similar conditions in this area.” It was also the opinion of the affiant, the surgeon to whom plaintiff was referred by defendant some ten days after injury and initial treatment, that “based upon reasonable medical probability, the type of injury which John Scanlon received to his left index finger would have resulted in amputation, regardless of any preliminary care and treatment which might have been rendered to him.”
Upon application of the principles elaborated in our opinion in Holl v. Talcott, sü-*554pra, we conclude that the movant in this cause did not meet the burden of demonstrating conclusively the absence of genuine issues of material fact, and the question of sufficiency of plaintiffs responsive medical affidavit should never have been reached. The decision below is accordingly quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the summary judgment be reversed.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forrest v. Carter, 308 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…., Fla.App., 306 So. 2d 194, opinion filed January 16, 1975; Holl v. Talcott, Sup.Ct.Fla.1966, 191 So. 2d 40; Visingardi v. Tirone, Sup.Ct.Fla.1966, 193 So. 2d 601; Biro v. Geiser, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1967, 199 So. 2d 461; Scanlon v. Litt, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1966, 191 So. 2d 553; Spencer v. Halifax Hospital District, Fla.App.1st 1970, 242 So. 2d 143; Wilson v. State Road Department, Fla.App.1st 1967, 201 So. 2d 619; Campbell v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Fla. App.1972, 265 So. 2d 557; Croft v. York, Fla.App.1st 1.971, 244 So. 2d…
-
Snead v. LE Jeune Rd. Hosp., Inc., 196 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…or in the summary judgment in favor of the hospital, contending’ that the hospital was liable under one or both of the above theories,1 and relies heavily upon the recent cases of Holl v. Talcott, Fla. 1966, 191 So. 2d 40; Scanlon v. Litt, Fla.1966, 191 So. 2d 553; Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla. 1967, 193 So. 2d 601; Hoder v. Sayet, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 205 (opinion filed January 31, 1967). We have reexamined these authorities and others cited by the appellant and, on the state of the record and briefs before…
-
Gruber v. Mount Sinai Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc., 487 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…law in the incident sued upon, and (c) the established law in Florida requires that the summary judgment herein be reversed as Dr. Edel-man failed to satisfy his burden of proof below in order to be entitled to such a judgment. See Scanlon v. Litt, 191 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1966); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Williams v. Florida Realty & Management Co., 272 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Holl v. Talcott, 171 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)