FRANCES M. DILLMANN AND JAIME V. DILLMANN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
DANIEL S. HELLMAN, 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 psychiatrist cannot be held liable for honest errors of judgment if their actions conform to accepted professional standards.
[1] A physician is not liable for honest errors of judgment made while pursuing professionally recognized methods, procedures, and practices.
[2] Summary judgment is appropriate when a defendant's deposition and that of another physician establish that the defendant's treatment conformed to community medical standa…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA patient was injured after being transferred to a less secure ward by her psychiatrist. The psychiatrist moved for summary judgment, supported by dep…
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 Professional Judgment Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, JOE A., Jr., Associate Judge.
Nine days after the appellant had been admitted and confined in the hospital, her psychiatrist, the appellee, thought she had progressed sufficiently to be transferred from the west wing to the more rehabilitative but less secure east wing of the same ward. Within twenty-four hours she jumped from an open window and injured herself.
When sued for negligence, the appellee moved for summary judgment, filing his own deposition and that of the appellant’s present physician. Both depositions affirm that appellee’s treatment conformed to the medical standards of the community. The appellant filed no opposition affidavits or evidence and appeals the summary judgment entered against her. The cases cited by the appellant are distinguishable from the facts in this case. In Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So. 2d 40, the defendant physicians produced only their own affidavits which the patient opposed with a physician’s affidavit. See the discussion of Holl in Stetson Intramural Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, page 42. This is not a case where lay persons can observe physical facts which may themselves be evidence of medical negligence as in Michaels v. Spiers, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 835 and Atkins v. Humes, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 663.
All that is left is the hindsight argument that the psychiatrist was negligent because if it were his judgment that the appellant could be' safely transferred to an area of less security the result proves he erred. This argument is no substitute for admissible evidence and disregards the fact that physicians and other professionals practice the arts and must be allowed a wide range in the exercise of judgment and 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nesbitt v. Cmty. Health OF S. Dade, Inc., 467 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…for honest error of staff in releasing mental patient who later committed murder); and courts disfavor hindsight arguments that a psychiatrist is negligent because subsequent events proved he erred in his earlier judgment. E.g., Dillmann v. Heilman, 283 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (hindsight arguments are no substitute for admissible evidence and disregard fact that physicians must be allowed wide range in exercising judgment and discretion). The unrefuted evidence is that Lawrence Nesbitt was a chronic sc…
-
Paddock v. Chawallur Devassey Chacko, M.D., 522 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ient with suicidal tendencies. See Robison v. Faine, 12 F.L.W. 2863 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 15, 1987); Nesbitt v. Community Health of South Dade, Inc., supra; North Miami General Hospital v. Krakower, 393 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Dillmann v. Hellman, 283 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). However, in each of these cases, the patients were already committed to the custody of a [*416] hospital or mental institution. These patients had surrendered themselves to the care of others and thus these custodians were in a p…
-
Lawlor v. Orlando, 795 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…e been offered, but which Dr. Orlando failed to perform or to make available. Whether any such omission proximately caused the plaintiffs decedent’s suicide is properly a question for the jury, given the expert’s affidavit. Cf. Dillmann v. Hellman, 283 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (affirming summary judgment where no affidavit contradicted treating psychiatrist’s affidavit that his treatment of patient who later jumped from second story window conformed to community standards). Accordingly, I respectfu…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Atkins v. Humes, 110 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1959)
- Madonna Potock v. Samuel L. Turek, M.D., 227 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Michaels v. Spiers, 144 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)