CASES - Civil

Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Hospitals -- Negligent credentialing of physician -- Action for damages caused by neurosurgeon who performed posterior cervical surgery with rod insertion using Luque rods which were not suitable for use in cervical spine -- Evidence -- Expert -- Qualifications -- No abuse of discretion in permitting plaintiff's expert on credentialing to testify, although expert had no experience in hospital administration in Florida -- Florida hospitals are governed by the same accreditation standards used by hospitals all over the country, and witness had previously been accepted by other courts as an expert in credentialing cases in Florida as well as in other jurisdictions -- Expert's testimony that neurosurgeon had not been required to demonstrate proficiency in any of the procedures he performed, that neurosurgeon was not even eligible to request the privilege to perform the particular procedure at issue, that neurosurgeon was performing the procedure for the first time, and that hospital had, in effect, simply given neurosurgeon unrestricted privileges, in violation of its own regulations, together with testimony of expert neurosurgeon that any properly credentialed neurosurgeon would have known that rods used could not be used in cervical spine due to high probability that they would migrate into brain, was sufficient for jury to find that, but for negligent credentialing, neurosurgeon would not have been permitted to do the operation which caused plaintiff's injuries -- Damages -- Testimony by plaintiff's wife that plaintiff could no longer do household chores and yard work, unsupported by evidence as to the value of those services, was not sufficient to support amount awarded to wife for past and future lost services -- Attorney's fees -- Error to award attorney's fees under section 766.209, which provides for voluntary binding arbitration and the recovery of attorney's fees by claimant where a defendant refuses offer to arbitrate and claimant prevails at trial, where plaintiff did not serve request for voluntary binding arbitration within ninety days after service of notice of intent to initiate litigation      Reported at 33 Fla. L. Weekly D488c
                                                 
Courtesy of Florida Law Weekly       Subscriptions (800) 351-0917   

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 1
  • 2/14/2008 9:03 PM SEIDMAN/SCHWARTZREICH MEETING? wrote:
    What's the deal with the confab between the private bar/BACDL and Seidman? Was the State invited?
  • 2/14/2008 9:30 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Is Seidman playing both sides to the middle this time?

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment

Comments are closed.