Articles Posted in Catastrophic Injury

Published on:

shutterstock_144026209-200x300Summer break has ended here in Florida and schools are back in session. Consequently, there are an abundance of inexperienced teenaged drivers on the road. Many of these teenaged drivers are under 18 and driving their parents’ car. In 2015, there were 42,874 teenaged driver car crashes in Florida according to the Department of Highway Safety. At The Grife Law Firm, we have a wealth of experience representing people who have been seriously injured due to young, reckless drivers. Frequently, we are asked: Who can I hold responsible for the damages caused by a reckless teenaged driver?

Pursuant to Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the owner of a vehicle is liable for damages caused by the negligence of permissive users. This doctrine was first recognized in the landmark 1920 case of Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, wherein the Supreme Court of Florida held that, “[O]ne who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway, is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality…” The rationale is that a motor vehicle is a potentially deadly piece of machinery that can cause serious harm, so the owner must bear some responsibility for damages caused by it. The hope is that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine will encourage vehicle owners to entrust only safe drivers to operate their cars. For purposes of our discussion, if a teenager drives in a reckless fashion and causes a car wreck, the owner of the at-fault vehicle will be held legally responsible for personal injury damages such as medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Florida has a very complshutterstock_92427613-300x192ex medical malpractice statutory scheme that an injured victim must follow in order to bring a case. Codified under chapter 766, the medical malpractice statutes require great skill to navigate. Amongst a host of other requirements, an injury victim must send relevant data to an expert medical professional in the same or similar specialty as the health care provider who you are going to bring suit against. That expert must then issue an affidavit verifying the negligence. The expert affidavit, along with several other documents, must then be served on the defendant doctor as part of a Notice of Intent to Initiate Medical Malpractice Litigation. All of the above must be accomplished within the two-year Statute of Limitations that Florida law affords victims of medical malpractice.

The recent case of Bay County Board of Commissioners v. Seeley provides us with a nice look at just how complex medical malpractice litigation can be. In Seeley, the plaintiff was injured when she fell off a stretcher while being wheeled by paramedics from her home to the awaiting ambulance. At first, she filed a lawsuit without complying with the medical malpractice pre-suit screening process because she did not believe her case was for medical negligence. That lawsuit was dismissed as the trial court determined her allegations were in fact medical malpractice in nature and thus she had to comply with the requirements of chapter 766.

Continue reading →

Published on:

shutterstock_412338376-300x200

In an exciting win for Florida personal injury plaintiffs and their physicians, the state’s Supreme Court issued a recent landmark decision in the case of Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, Inc. The main issues in Worley were the permissibility of discovery as to who referred a plaintiff to her treating physicians and the financial relationship between those treating physicians and the plaintiff’s attorney. These hotly contested issues permeate many personal injury cases. In a very cogent opinion, the Supreme Court resolved these long-standing conflicts in favor of Florida personal injury plaintiffs by fully restoring the attorney-client privilege and making treating physician financial discovery off-limits.

Continue reading →

Published on:

shutterstock_233095072-300x201As the holidays approach, many of us will be attending parties at restaurants and having parties at our homes. At most of these parties, alcoholic beverages will be served. So, what are the legal ramifications for a restaurant or homeowner if someone leaves their property intoxicated and causes serious injuries to themselves or others? Florida’s Dram Shop law, codified as Fla. Stat. § 768.125, provides only very limited scenarios under which a business or homeowner can be held liable for the tortious acts of an intoxicated person such as a drunk driver.

Under Florida’s Dram Shop law, there are only two scenarios where a business or homeowner can be successfully sued for the actions of an intoxicated person. Those scenarios are: (1) the willful and unlawful selling or furnishing of alcoholic beverages to a person not of legal drinking age; and (2) knowingly serving a person alcohol who is “habitually addicted to the use of alcoholic beverages.” Under any other circumstances, according to §768.125, a person or business who provides alcoholic beverages to someone of legal drinking age “shall not thereby become liable for injury or damage” caused by or resulting from that intoxicated person.

Continue reading →

Published on:

shutterstock_287333165The increasing popularity of ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft have given rise to a burgeoning area of law and personal injury claims. Many of us rely on these companies to get us home safely, but sometimes Uber and Lyft drivers can cause automotive crashes. Other times, another driver negligently causes a collision with an Uber or Lyft vehicle. Regardless of fault, there are certain insurance and legal issues that you should be aware of if you are involved in a ride-sharing automotive crash.

Uber and Lyft both market that they have secured high-limit insurance policies for the protection of their passengers. Currently, these two companies advertise that they have $1 million in liability and uninsured motorist coverage per incident (see our website on why you need Uninsured Motorist coverage for your personal automobile policy). This means if you are in a ride-sharing vehicle and that drivers causes a crash, you and all other injured parties have up to $1 million combined in liability coverage for your damages. Likewise, if an uninsured or underinsured driver crashes into your Uber or Lyft vehicle, you (and the other injured persons) will be covered up to $1 million combined from the ride-sharing company.

While $1 million might sound like a lot coverage, what happens if an Uber or Lyft driver causes a crash where there are a multitude of injured people whose aggregate claims are above $1 million? A negligent ride-sharing driver can severely injure or kill passengers in his or her vehicle and other drivers and their passengers. If this tragic event occurs, the injured parties will certainly want to make a claim directly against the ride-sharing company to collect more than the $1 million in insurance coverage. Under the agency law, the ride-sharing companies will likely argue that their drivers are independent contractors and not employees. That would mean under agency law that Uber or Lyft might not be held responsible for the damages.

Published on:

shutterstock_45805501 (2)Drunk driving is a very serious crime that causes horrific car crashes.  Often times the drunken driver reaches egregious speeds and does not keep a proper lookout, which causes very heavy impact collisions. Having represented injury victims in Florida for over a decade, I have represented many people who were injured due to drunk and intoxicated drivers.  Often times, victims of drunk drivers and their loved ones feel particularly traumatized knowing that someone acted with such reckless indifference towards their safety – that the accident “did not have to happen”.

Florida law recognizes the extremely reckless nature of crashes caused by drunk drivers and offers punitive damages to their victims. Punitive damages, as prescribed by Fla. Stat. §768.72, are a special kind of damages that are not available in most cases.  They are designed to punish those who cause injury as a result of a, “conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.”  Florida law ensures that drunk drivers are included in
that category.

Continue reading →

Published on:

shutterstock_78346864Under Florida Statute §768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, parties in civil lawsuits are entitled to make Proposals for Settlements to the opposition. A Proposal for Settlement involves making a formal offer in writing to the other side to settle a case for a certain dollar amount. If the offeree does not accept the settlement offer within 30 days and the case proceeds to a trial and jury verdict, he or she can be liable for the attorneys’ fees and costs of the prevailing party offeror. The topic of Proposals for Settlement has led to a plethora of appellate decisions regarding their enforceability. This is largely due to the fact that there is no standard form issued by either the Florida Supreme Court of the legislature. This means the parties have to draft their own Proposals for Settlement and the courts have to determine on a case-by-case basis whether they are enforceable as written.

One recent appellate decision on a Proposal for Settlement, Miley v. Nash, provided guidance to practitioners on drafting these documents. In Miley, Martha Nash sued the Defendants for personal injuries that stemmed from an automobile accident. Her husband, Garfield Nash, brought a claim for loss of consortium. The Nash’s alleged that Kyle Miley, while driving a vehicle owned by Glenn Miley, negligently caused the subject car crash.

Prior to trial, the Defendant, Kyle Miley, made a Proposal for Settlement to the Plaintiff, Martha Nash, in the amount of $58,590. The Proposal read that it was, “an attempt to resolve all claims and causes of action resulting from the incident or accident giving rise to this lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Martha Nash against Defendant Kyle Mylie.” The proposal required that Marsha Nash dismiss both Defendants but was completely silent as to Garfield Nash and the loss of consortium claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

med mal blogIn Woodson v. Go, Florida’ Fifth District Court of Appeal (“Fifth DCA”) held that even in complex medical malpractice cases, the trial court has broad discretion to place limitations on expert witnesses. The holding represents a self-proclaimed rescission from Lake v. Clark, a 1988 Fifth DCA decision that overturned a trial court’s exclusion of a doctor’s expert witness testimony on standard of care.

The Woodson case involved a Plaintiff who claimed medical malpractice for negligent placement of a cardiac cauterization and failure to timely detect the resulting occlusion. To further his case, the plaintiff sought to call two interventional cardiologists as expert witnesses. The trial court allowed this, but limited one expert to liability only and the other only to causation. The Defendants all denied liability and maintained that they properly met the standard of care. At trial, the Defendants were victorious on liability which prompted the Plaintiff to appeal the final judgment based on the limitation of expert witnesses.

In upholding the verdict for the Defendants, the Fifth DCA held, “…we see no reason to permit litigants in medical malpractice cases to have an almost unfettered right to present cumulative expert witness testimony.” Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court noted black-letter Florida law that gives trial courts broad discretion in placing limitations on expert witnesses. See Lion Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Suarez, 844 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Elder v. Farulla, 768 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The court also referenced Fla. Stat 90.612(1)(b), Fla. Stat. 90.403 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(b)(4), all of which give the trial court the duty and power to limit cumulative testimony, including that of experts, for the purposes of an expedient trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In a landmark decision, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) in North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan held that caps on non-economic damages in personal injury medical malpractice cases violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution.

shutterstock_184358357The Plaintiff,  Susan Kalitan, suffered serious injury due to medical negligence when she went in for a carpal tunnel surgery that required anesthesia. The Defendant/anesthesiologist punctured a hole in her esophagus while performing intubation. When Ms. Kalitan awoke after surgery, she complained of excruciating pain in her chest and back but the anesthesiologist failed to detect the problem. She was released from the hospital, but the next day Ms. Kalitan’s neighbor found her at home unresponsive. She was rushed back to the hospital for life-saving surgery. Ms. Kalitan spent several weeks in a drug-induced coma before having additional surgeries and intensive therapy to begin eating again and regain mobility. She presently suffers from pain in the upper half of her body and serious mental disorders as a result of this traumatic incident and loss of independence due to physical limitations.

At trial, the jury awarded Ms. Kalitan $4 million in non-economic damages, but that figure was reduced by the trial court post-verdict to $2 million under the non-economic damages caps found in Fla. Stat. 766.118. The trial court denied the Plaintiff’s arguments that the caps were unconstitutional violations of the Equal Protection Clause, her right to access the courts and her right to trial by jury.

Ms. Kalitan appealed the reduction of her jury-awarded damages to the Fourth DCA where she was victorious. Judge Forst delivered the opinion for the appellate court, wherein he carefully followed the Florida Supreme Court’s rationale in Estate of McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014). In Estate of McCall, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that caps on non-economic damages in wrongful death cases violated Florida’s Equal Protection Clause as, “the greater the number of survivors and the more devastating their losses are, the less likely they are to be fully compensated for those loses”, particularly in comparison to cases where there was only one survivor.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Traumatic brain injuries are some of the most catastrophic injuries you can suffer. In many instances, a brain injury can result in severe, lifelong disabilities that require ongoing medical care and rehabilitation. Prompt diagnosis and treatment is crucial to your ability to recover from a brain injury. For this reason, it is important to seek medical care immediately following a blow to the head.

There are a wide range of symptoms associated with traumatic brain injuries. The ones you exhibit may vary depending

on the location and severity of your blow to the head. If you experience any of the following brain injury symptoms after hitting your head, visit your doctor at once:

  • Loss of consciousness
  • Disorientation or confusion
  • Fatigue
  • Drowsiness
  • Dizziness
  • Balance issues
  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Headaches
  • Difficulty sleeping
  • Sleeping more than usual
  • Sensory issues such as ringing in the ears, blurry vision, or a bad taste in the mouth
  • Sensitivity to light or sound
  • Depression
  • Memory issues
  • Concentration issues
  • Mood swings
  • Convulsions or seizures
  • Weakness or numbness in extremities
  • Slurred speech
  • Agitation or combativeness

Continue reading →