SHIRLEY LANE AND WILLIAM H. LANE, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARTHUR N. COHEN, APPELLEE
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.
A physician is not an insurer of the success of an operation, and the mere fact that an operation was not successful does not create an issue of medical negligence.
Plaintiff sued a doctor for negligence after a vasectomy operation, alleging the doctor carelessly advised him he was sterile. The operation was unsuc…
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 Physician'S Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals a summary final judgment for the defendant. The complaint alleged negligence by the defendant, doctor, in the manner of performance of an operation. It was also alleged that the doctor “carelessly, unskillfully, and negligently examined and advised” the plaintiff that he was sterile. The pleadings and depositions on file show that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The depositions establish without conflict that the plaintiff employed the defendant to perform an operation known as a vasectomy. This operation is designed to render a male incapable of procreation. The facts before the court further establish without conflict that in a small percentage of instances the operation is unsuccessful. In this instance plaintiff’s wife conceived some time after the operation.
The deposition of plaintiff demonstrates that the plaintiff is completely without proofs to sustain his complaint. See Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, Fla. 1959, 109 So.2d 5. It affirmatively appears that the sole factual basis for plaintiff’s claim of negligence was evidence that the operation was not an unqualified success. Inasmuch as physicians are not insurers of the success of their treatment, this fact did not create an issue on the charge of medical negligence. See Levin v. Rosenblum, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 577.
It is suggested that the doctor orally guaranteed the success of the operation. The pleadings do not present such an issue. See Deauville Operating Corp. v. Town and Beach Pl. Co., Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 353.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pomales v. B. P. OIL Corp., 273 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of the rule stated in Lane v. Cohen, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 804.…
-
Slate v. Brown, 256 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…countered. The testimony of the plaintiffs fails to support the allegations of their complaint. In [*65] addition, it affirmatively appears that there is no further evidence of the alleged fraud available for trial. See Lane v. Cohen, Fla. App.1967, 201 So. 2d 804 for the rule that a summary judgment will' be affirmed where the depositions demonstrate that the appellant is completely without proofs to sustain his complaint. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Patty, 109 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1959)
- Levin v. Rosenblum, 133 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Deauville Operating Corp. v. Town & Beach Plumbing Co., Inc., 123 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)