MADONNA POTOCK, A SINGLE WOMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL L. TUREK, M.D., 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 medical malpractice plaintiff appealed an adverse jury verdict in a case involving alleged negligence by a physician during a lumbosacral spine fusion operation. The appellate court affirmed the trial judgment, finding no error in the directed verdict, jury instructions on medical malpractice standards, or limitation on closing argument.
The trial court committed no error. The directed verdict was proper because there was no evidence supporting the count alleging failure to visualize lumbosacral disc spaces. The limitation on closing argument time was within the trial judge's discretion. The jury instruction on the medical malpractice standard—that physicians must be shown to have pursued a course clearly against that recognized as correct by the profession—correctly stated the law.
“Physicians are not held liable under the law for honest errors of judgment. They are allowed a wide range in the exercise of their judgment and discretion. To hold one liable, it must be shown that the course which he pursued was clearly against the course recognized as correct by his profession.”
Establishes the legal standard for physician malpractice liability in Florida, allowing physicians latitude for honest errors but requiring that liability-supporting conduct be clearly contrary to professional standards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMadonna Potock sued Dr. Samuel L. Turek for medical malpractice related to a lumbosacral spine fusion operation. The plaintiff's amended complaint con…
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 Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered on a jury verdict in a medical malpractice cause. The plaintiff’s amended ■complaint contained seven counts related to the alleged negligence of the defendant. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, her counsel stipulated there was insufficient evidence to submit two of the counts to the jury. The trial judge directed a verdict on one of the counts and, at the conclusion of all the evidence, submitted the matter to the jury on the alleged negligence contained in the four remaining counts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and this appeal ensued.
The appellant contends, first, that the trial court erred in entering a directed verdict on one of the counts. We find no merit in this contention. There was no evidence to support the count, which charged:
“That the defendant * * * negligently and carelessly failed to visualize *725the lumbosacral disc spaces during the fusion operation and prior to performing a fusion of the lumbosacral spine in order to determine the absence or presence of degenerative disc disease.”
Therefore, the action of the trial judge was correct. Jacksonville Electric Company v. Dillon, 67 Fla. 114, 64 So. 669; St. Johns Electric Company v. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188, 105 So. 818; Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777, 30 So.2d 174.
Secondly, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in limiting the time of closing argument. Initially, it does not appear from the record that the trial judge arbitrarily limited the time; but even if he did it does not appear that this would be an abuse of discretion. Generally, the manner of conducting a trial and the time for closing argument lies within the discretion of the trial judge. Daniel v. Rogers, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 391; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 116; Anno. 3 A.L.R.3rd 1341.
Thirdly, the appellant contends the trial judge erred in giving the following instruction:
“Physicians are not held liable under the law for honest errors of judgment. They are allowed a wide range in the exercise of their judgment and discretion. To hold one liable, it must be shown that the course which he pursued was clearly against the course recognized as correct by his profession.”
This instruction followed the law, as announced in the following cases: Bourgeois v. Dade County, Fla.1956, 99 So.2d 575, 72 A.L.R.2d 391; Blackwell v. Southern Florida Sanitarium and Hospital Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 45. Therefore, no error is found in the trial judge’s giving of this instruction.
Lastly, in view of what has been said above, there was no error in the entry of the cost judgment complained of by the appellant. Ossinsky v. Nance, Fla.App. 1960, 118 So.2d 47; Rutkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 221; § 57.041, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the verdict and final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miriam Mascheck, Inc. v. Mausner, 264 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…d by similar training and experience to perform similar services in the community or in a similar community. Hill v. Boughton, 146 Fla. 505, 1 So. 2d 610 (1941); Saunders v. Lischkoff, 137 Fla. 826, 188 So. 815 (1939); Potock v. Turek, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 724; O’Grady v. Wickman, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 321; Lab v. Hall, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 556. While most of the decided cases deal with physicians and surgeons, the same increased standard is undoubtedly true for dentists, attorneys, architects, en…
-
Woodham v. ROY, 471 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…oes not mean that justice can be administered arbitrarily with a stopwatch. On the contrary, the rule of informed discretion announced in May v. State, supra, applies with equal force. See Daniel v. Rogers, 72 So. 2d 391 (Fla.1954); Potock v. Turek, 227 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. dismissed, 238 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1970). In establishing the appropriate time limitation for closing argument, the court should consider the following factors: length of trial, number of witnesses, amount of evidence, importan…
-
Frances M. Dillmann and Jaime v. Dillmann, 283 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…discretion. They cannot insure results and cannot be held liable under law for honest errors of judgment made while pursuing methods, courses, procedures and practices recognized as acceptable by their profession. See Potock v. Turek, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 724. The order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee is affirmed. MANN, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bourgeois v. Dade Cnty., 99 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1956)
- Erle L. Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1947)
- Walker v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 195 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- The St. Johns Elec. Co. v. Lawler, 90 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1925)
- Daniel v. Rogers, 72 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1954)
- Ossinsky v. Dayton Nance, 118 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Dillon, 67 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1914)
- Blackwell v. S. Fla. Sanitarium & Hosp. Corp., 174 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)