SHELLY COWAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. MENILIO DIAZ-PADRON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Negligent Treatment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1108] PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff [Shelly Cowan] appeals from an adverse summary judgment in a medical malpractice action contending that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the alleged negligent diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff’s spinal injuries by the defendant [Dr. Menilio Diaz-Padron]. We agree and reverse on the authority of Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
There remain genuine issues of material fact in the case including whether the defendant, consistent with the standards of reasonable medical care in the community, promptly administered and properly read the results of a Queckenstedt test given the plaintiff to determine the presence of blockage of cerebral spinal fluid, whether the plaintiff should have been promptly placed in traction after discovery of the injury, and whether a drug called decadron should have been administered to treat the plaintiff’s spinal cord injury so as to prevent the alleged painful and unnecessary spinal fusion eventually administered to the plaintiff. There are also genuine issues relating to whether the defendant promptly ordered a circular hospital bed for the plaintiff so as to prevent the occurrence of alleged painful decubitus ulcers. See Helms v. Sims, 330 So. 2d 71 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Giallanza v. Sands, 316 So. 2d 77 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Lab v. Hall, 200 So. 2d 556 (Fla.4th DCA 1967).
The summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant is, accordingly, reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. J. M. Langstaff, M.D., 383 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…e artery lying beneath. The difficulty in this case was not the method and procedure chosen by the defendant/doctor but rather his negligent administration of an approved procedure for which summary judgment is not appropriate. Cowan v. Diaz-Padron, 350 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). It is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce a medical expert in all malpractice cases, in order to successfully obtain a jury trial. Pierce v. Smith, 301 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Such a rule would unconstitutionally d…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- LAB v. Hall, 200 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Giallanza v. Sands, 316 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Helms v. M. David Sims, M.D., 330 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)