Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

I was deeply troubled to read about the recent Florida wrongful death case of Christopher Milanese. Mr. Milanese was arrested and taken to the Boca Raton Police Department, where he was issued five (5) traffic citations, none of which were for driving under the influence.

The Police Department called a taxi cab for Mr. Milanese and released him while he was still intoxicated. Apparently, the taxi driver did not see Mr. Milanese and left the station. Mr. Milanese attempted to walk home but only made it as far as the nearest train tracks, 50 feet from the station's door, where he was killed instantly by an oncoming train. At the time of his death, Mr. Milanese's blood alcohol level was .199.

Mr. Milanese's family sued the City of Boca Raton, claiming that the Police Department owed Mr. Milanese a duty not to release him from their custody while impaired and that the Police knew of the danger of the train tracks and failed to warn and protect him. A Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge heard the arguments and dismissed the case. An appeal to Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal followed.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court and stated that the Police no longer had a duty to care for Mr. Milanese once he was released from custody, and that he did not face a risk of harm that was created by the Police. Citing as precedent, to support its decision, the court relied on the legal theory that Mr. Milanese was in no greater danger or no worse position than if the Police had not been involved at all. In other words, "the State does not become the permanent guarantee of an individual's safety by having once offered him shelter."

Our Miami hospital injury law firm is currently suing a Miami hospital for the alleged negligent discharge of a patient, being treated for alcohol abuse and depression, who committed suicide. Our case was also dismissed by the trial court and is currently on appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal. As a lawyer who sues Miami doctors and hospitals for inappropriate care of high risk patients, I find the facts of Mr. Milanese's case painfully similar. The Boca Raton Police placed Mr. Milanese in an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm, considering that he was in their care and custody at a time where he was vulnerable, impaired and unable to protect himself.

First, and foremost, I do not understand why the Police would release a person while they are inebriated. I think that, alone, is grounds for the case to proceed to a jury. Second, the Police did not escort him to the taxi or offer to take him home, they simply opened the door and let him walk out. Third, the Police knew he was impaired or drunk and that an active railroad track was only 50 feet from the front door. That is simply a zone of risk that the Police have an obligation to protect him from.

Once the police felt that Mr. Milanese was too drunk to be behind the wheel of his own car, and took him into custody, they undertook the responsibility to protect him from danger, even if the danger was himself. Once they undertook the care of Mr. Milanese, by calling him a taxi cab, they should have made sure that he was safely on his way. Simply ejecting an intoxicated man into the dark of night, with an active railroad less than 50 feet away, is wrong, and the Boca Raton Police Department should be forced to explain this to a jury, at the very least.

The Undertaker's Doctrine, in Florida, is a common law doctrine that provides, that "in every situation where a man undertakes to act or pursue a particular course, he is under an implied legal obligation or duty to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person may not be injured by any force which he sets in operation, or by any agent for which he is responsible. If he fails to exercise the degree of caution which the law requires in a particular situation, he is held liable for any damage that results to another, just as if he had bound himself by an obligatory promise to exercise the required degree of care."

As a Florida wrongful death attorney, I am troubled by this opinion for a number of reasons, but perhaps the single most offensive issue is the notion that a trial judge intercepted justice, by preventing a jury from even hearing the facts. The case was dismissed without allowing a Palm Beach County jury to listen to all of the evidence. I fear that this case will send a message to police, hospitals, schools and businesses that it is okay if someone, who is intoxicated, misdiagnosed or treated, is hurt or killed, as long as it does not happen on your property.

In cases where a Florida hospital or doctor is accused of causing the death of a patient, the patient's family has to prove not only that the healthcare provider made a medical mistake but that the mistake, in fact, proximately caused the patient's death.

Camillus Alfred, a Broward County Florida husband, recently sued Hollywood Medical Center alleging that they were responsible for the death of his wife, Ursuline Alfred. A Fort Lauderdale jury agreed and entered a verdict against the hospital. The Florida hospital appealed the verdict, to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, and argued that the Judge should have entered a directed verdict and should have never allowed the case to go to a jury. The hospital claimed that Mr. Alford was unable to prove that the hospital's nursing staffs' (not the defendant doctor who incidentally settled while the jury was deliberating) acts "more likely than not" caused his wife's death.

Apparently, Mrs. Alfred died after unsuccessful attempts to intubate her caused her to go into cardiac arrest. Intubation should only take seconds and is a method of delivering increased oxygen to the heart.

The Appellate Court in Hollywood Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Medical Center v. Camillus Alfred, as Personal Representative of Ursuline Alfred, reversed the trial court by stating that there was no evidence in the record that the nursing staffs' negligence was a cause of death or that it was a nursing obligation to intubate a patient. Moreover, even though there was proof of nursing mistakes, there was no evidence that any of the failures affected the ultimate outcome.

Florida's medical malpractice law is outlined by Florida's Supreme Court in the seminal case of Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg. Inc., 445 So. 2nd 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984). It requires that a claimant in a medical malpractice case prove that the injury "more likely than not" resulted from the defendant's negligence in order to establish a jury question on proximate cause. When a plaintiff cannot prove proximate cause in Florida, a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict.

Many mistakes are caused by Florida's healthcare providers every day from birth trauma injuries to bed sores. Often times, these mistakes result in injury, disfigurement, and death. However, if a claimant is unable to prove that the mistake "more likely than not" caused the injury or death, the injured patient will not be legally entitled to submit their claim to a jury. As such, proving causation is often the most difficult element in litigating claims on behalf of Florida's injured patients.

Our Florida patient advocates are dedicated to holding hospitals and doctors responsible for the harm caused by their negligence. We hope that this ruling will not discourage doctors and hospitals from providing Florida's patients the best healthcare possible.

Being a Florida personal injury trial lawyer can be very painful, especially when an attorney puts his heart and passion into a case. Yet, in every case, no matter the type or the facts, there will be a winner and loser. Much like a boxing match, with a knock-out punch, someone will be left standing over the devastated body of an opponent.

In a Florida medical malpractice wrongful death law suit, when a plaintiff or the plaintiff's family loses by either an order of the court or jury verdict they have in essence, lost twice. First, whatever injury and damages they have incurred as the result of someone's carelessness or something's misuse may leave scars, disfigurement or disability--not to mention the economics of time lost from work and medical expenses. The second, and often more painful loss, occurs when a judge or jury tells the injured they are not entitled to compensation.

After having practiced hospital injury law in Florida on behalf of the injured or disfigured or deceased for over twenty years, I can report that the majority of Florida's laws are carefully written to protect the wealthy, powerful and educated, not the most vulnerable. The sick and dying are often denied access to the courthouses of Florida by a complex scheme of laws found in the Florida Statutes. Doctors and hospitals enjoy a degree of protections and insulation from accountability that is unparalleled.

Today, my visit to the Miami-Dade Courthouse served as a cold, dull reminder. Our law firm has the honor of representing the family of a nurse who committed suicide after being, as we believe, negligently and carelessly cared for by a Miami hospital's addiction treatment center. The nurse suffered but functioned for over twenty years with alcohol addiction and depression. Rather than admit him to an extended outpatient residential program, he was sent home after a rapid, chemically-manipulated detoxification from alcohol. He was placed in an evening program run by the hospital that met for several hours per night, and only four nights per week. Within a few days, he committed suicide by blowing his brains out with a handgun.

We sued the hospital, the doctor who sent him home, and the social worker who had the responsibility of caring for him in the outpatient evening program in Miami for the suicide death. The Defendants took a hard-lined position and moved to dismiss the entire law suit with prejudice, based upon a number of Florida cases that limited the responsibility of healthcare providers for the suicidal death of a patient. While I believe our facts are different and do not believe that this is the appropriate forum to argue the merits of this particular case, I am saddened to write that the Judge agreed with the Defendants and dismissed the entire case with prejudice. In other words, no jury will ever get to hear the facts and decide whether the hospital was wrong. It means that a widow and two children will not have the opportunity to present their claim to a Miami-Dade jury to decide if they are entitled to justice.

Instead, based upon Florida's Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(4)(b) the court is permitted to dismiss a claim that does not state a cause of action. Apparently, this particular judge's interpretation of the law is that the suicide of a patient while outside of the facility or custody of the hospital but while still under the facility's care, no matter the reason the patient is outside the facility or custody, is not a legal basis for a law suit.

If returning to the office after a loss of this magnitude is painful, the phone call to the awaiting clients who have placed their hopes and needs in our hands is pure torture. Again, the second loss is sometime worse than the first.

Thankfully, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow for appeals from rulings that either side does not believe to be correct. We intend to appeal this ruling to Florida's Third District Court of Appeal, with the hope that our clients will not be denied an opportunity to have the justice they deserve.

Florida's Fourth District Court of Appealleft little doubt who side they are on when they recently dismissed the claim of Charles Burns on behalf of the Estate of Enrique Casanovas for a Florida hospital's medical malpractice and wrongful death that occurred at Palms West Hospital.

Mr. Casanovas was taken to the Emergency Room of Palms West hospital complaining of abdominal pain and nausea and was vomiting blood. He was found to have high blood sugar and was in diabetic ketoacidosis. The ER doctor knew he needed to be seen immediately by a gastroenterologist; however there were none at the hospital.

Sadly, the hospital tried to contact every GI on staff, all of whom refused to come because Mr. Casanovas was uninsured. When no doctors came to Mr. Casanova's aid, the hospital was forced to have him transferred to North Broward Medical Center where he died.

His estate sued Palms West Hospital and alleged that they were negligent in allowing doctors on staff that would not come to the aid of an uninsured patient. Like most hospitals, Palms West had a contract with gastroenterologist to provide emergency room services and therefore had the obligation to provide those services to patients like Mr. Casanovas regardless of insurance. The Complaint alleged that the hospital knew that these GI docs would refuse to come if called on an uninsured patient but allowed them to stay on staff anyway.

The Complaint against the hospital was for negligent retention of these doctors and failure to ensure that the hospital had adequate and competent staff. The Estate did not comply with Florida's Medical Malpractice Act found in Florida Statute §766.203 and sued the hospital on standard negligence and malpractice theories. The trial court dismissed all of the counts for failure to comply with the presuit requirements of the Florida Malpractice Act but allowed the two remaining causes of action to proceed.

Palm West filed a petition for certiorari for failure to dismiss the remaining two counts and the Fourth District Court of Appeal accepted the petition for certiorari relief in that they felt that irreparably injury would occur if the case proceeded to trial. The Fourth reversed the trial court by finding that the remaining claims for rendering or failure to render medical services do in fact arise from the Florida Medical Malpractice Act and that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by not dismissing the entire law suit for not complying with the presuit requirements.

While not every injury that occurs in connection with medical care and treatment is subject to the Malpractice Act, our lawyers believe that when if at all possible, one should try to comply with the presuit requirements to avoid running the risk of having a case dismissed. As a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who sues doctors and hospitals for malpractice I am saddened by the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling in this case, especially in light of Mr. Casanova's death and the callousness of both the hospital and the doctors who refused to come to his aid.

Continue reading "Florida's 4 DCA Allows Hospital To Escape Accountability Failure to Treat Uninsured Patient" »

Florida's personal injury defense lawyers must have all gone to the same seminar and came back with a concerted effort to try to intimidate and harass Plaintiffs and their attorneys with the use and misuse of Rule 57.105 of the Florida Statutes. Section 57.105 is found in the Florida Statutes and serves to provide attorney's fees and sanctions against lawyers and their clients. I am a lawyer who sues Florida's hospitals for injured patients for over twenty years. I have never before seen the flurry of Rule 57.105 motions that I have witnessed in 2011. They have been misused and abused and meant for nothing more than a scare tactic to dissuade the zealous representation of the injured.

According Rule 57.105, it is appropriate to award sanctions in either of the following cases:

Frivolous Facts or Law

If a court finds that a lawyer or party "knowingly" brought a claim or defense that is unsupported by material facts or the then existing law then it can be argued that the claim or defense was frivolous. The court must specifically find by a preponderance of the evidence that the attorney knew that the claim was essentially baseless or that the law simply does not support the action.

Unreasonable Delay

In addition, a motion for 57.105 can be brought by any party at any time in a Civil proceeding in response to a pleading or discovery demand that is done primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay. If the court finds that the opposing side's actions are frivolous it can award damages that include attorney's fees, and other sanctions as a result of the improper delay.

One exception to the rule is if the Court finds that the party making the argument subject to the motion for sanctions had done so with a "good faith" in an effort to extend or modify the then-existing state of the law or is trying to reverse existing law to establish new law. In order to try to protect parties, there is a 21 day "safe harbor" period where parties are notified of the intention to challenge a particular paper, pleading, claim or defense. This gives the accused an opportunity to reconsider his argument and withdraw the offensive pleading without the risk of having to pay sanctions and attorney's fees.

Our Broward County personal injury law firm believes that laws are meant to be followed but have to be challenged when they prevent justice from being served. For example, same-sex marriage is illegal in Florida. It deprives many partners of the loss of support and services when their significant others are injured or killed due to the carelessness of a Florida business owner, physician or hospital.

The Florida law that prohibits same-sex marriage is an example of a Florida law that should be challenged by plaintiff's lawyers in every applicable case. I believe that lawsuits should be filed on behalf of same-sex partners to force courts to address this issue as both unconstitutional and as a deprivation of due process and equal protection. As a Florida injury lawyer I encourage all lawyers to bend unjust laws until they break; challenging our legislature to provide equal justice for every single member of our society, rather than just protection for the few.

I am a Miami lawyer who sues doctors and hospitals on behalf of injured Florida's injured patients and their families for over twenty years. I have sadly watched the legal rights of injured patients get whittled away since I started practicing law in 1991. But nothing compares to the machete that Florida's Governor Rick Scott has wielded in the short time since his election. Take his latest weapon: Florida's brand new Statute §766.1065 "Authorization for release of protected health information" in claims for personal injury or wrongful death.

Florida does not permit injured patients or their families to simply sue negligent doctors. Instead, the law requires families and their lawyers to engage in a burdensome, expensive, tricky and time consuming ordeal known as "Presuit." It forces the injured to obtain medical records, expert opinions and comply with a complex and downright tricky legal maze before a law suit can even be filed. Generally, Presuit has to start within two years of the incident, giving doctors and hospitals the advantage of having a shorter statute of limitations than every other defendant in the State of Florida simply because they are "healthcare providers." In the end, Florida's malpractice law simply eliminates all but the most catastrophic medical mistakes from even getting filed as law suits. In the end, injuries that do not cause permanent and significant changes in the quality of a patient's life nearly always go uncompensated.

Florida's Statute §766.1065 simply raises the bar by requiring that the Presuit procedure also include an authorization for the release of a patient's protected health information that is "potentially relevant" to the claim. In fact, if the authorization is not provided in the specific format required by the statute the entire Presuit will be deemed void.

Furthermore, Section 766.1065(2) states that if the patient or their family decides to revoke the authorization it will void the Presuit notice and potentially destroy a claim if the Statute of Limitations has passed.

This new "authorization" allows the defendant doctors or hospitals and their lawyers and insurance companies to obtain an injured Florida patient's medical records and verbally interact with the patient's other doctors. It requires the injured patient to provide a list of the names and addresses of all healthcare providers for two years before the incident even occurred. That means that if an anesthesiologist performs a femoral block on the wrong leg, the injured patient will have to give that anesthesiologist, his lawyers, and medical malpractice insurance company the names and addresses of the doctors she has seen two years before the malpractice even occurred. Then the defendant doctor and his team can obtain her records and even speak with her doctors regarding treatments or procedures that have absolutely nothing to do with her claim.

As a Key West PI attorney I fear this will have a chilling effect on patient care. I am concerned that if a defendant doctor and his lawyers are permitted to speak with unrelated healthcare providers and tell them that their patient is engaged in a Florida medical injury claim, some doctors will start treating their patients more defensively or discharge them completely for fear of being dragged into litigation.

Section C of the required authorization allows patients to certify doctors they believe are not relevant to the claim for the injuries but still requires the patient to list the providers' names, dates of treatment, examination and evaluation.

An other potential harm of this statute is that it will force patients who have received treatment for issues that are private and not relevant to the alleged Florida medical mistake to disclose personal medical information. The effect of this statute may coerce Florida's injured patients and or surviving family to simply abandon legitimate claims. For example, it a patient has been treated for a Sexually Transmitted Disease, Addiction or Depression, she will be forced by this statute and its required authorization to disclose this information to sue a Fort Lauderdale doctor who did a botched plastic surgery.

As a Fort Lauderdale lawyer who sues doctors and hospitals, I find Florida Governor Rick Scott's obsession and interpretation of the United States Constitution's Second Amendment frightening. Since becoming Florida's Governor, Rick Scott has done little to make Florida's patients safer.

When he signed the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act into law he sought to prohibit doctors from asking if their patients had access to guns. Governor Scott claims that the law is needed to protect patients from being "harassed" by nosy doctors wanting to know and note if there are any weapons in the house. The law goes on to provide a means to discipline doctors if they violate the law or affect the patient's insurance premiums.

Of course the National Rifle Association is fully supporting Governor Scott on this issue. The most significant critics of this law is the Florida Chapter of the American
Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP claims, when a gun is kept in a home it is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.
The risk of suicide is 5 times more likely when a gun is kept in the home.

It is impossible for our Florida personal injury law firm to imagine a scenario where a dispute would arise between the NRA and our governor against a group of pediatricians--but that is precisely what is happening. United States District Court Judge Marcia Cooke ruled that Governor Scott's law was invalid stating that Doctor's have a First Amendment right to inquire about fire arms. Governor Scott is appealing the ruling.

Sadly, our Miami attorneys who represent families of suicide victims have seen first hand the devastation that can happen when untreated or misdiagnosed patients have access to a gun. We agree with Judge Cooke's ruling and urge Governor Scott to reconsider his views on this issue. We believe that patients and their families should be provided with the best and safest medical care. Governor Scott has no business interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, especially when the safety of patients and their families is in question. There simply is no reasonable explanation to pass a law that prevents doctors from simply ask if a gun is in the house.

As a Florida hospital injury attorney I am surprised by the number of gall bladder removal procedures that are performed in our country on a daily basis. The procedure to remove a gall bladder is a called a cholecystectomy and according to the Mayo Clinic carries "a small risk of complications."

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, or "Lap Choly," is a procedure performed to treat patients who may have a gallstone in the gallbladder, bile duct or inflammation in the gallbladder or pancreas. It is usually performed by general surgeons using a camera. The procedure is done under general anesthesia.

In 1985, the first laparoscopic cholecystecomy was performed. In 1992, the National Institute of Health concluded that laparoscopic cholesystecomies are "safe and effective" in the treatment for most patients. Laparoscopic surgery is very popular with both patients and their insurance companies. Since the procedure is performed without a large incision, patients are usually able to return home from the hospital and go back to work.

Nearly 750,000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies are performed annually in the United States, making it one of the most common elective surgeries. Unfortunately, there is a serious risk of injury or death associated with a laparoscopic cholecystectomy that many patients are unaware of until after the surgery. This is the possibility that there could be an intra-operative injury to the bile duct. This happens with greater frequency in laparoscopic procedures compared to open procedures when the surgeon is unable to fully visualize the anatomy and cuts the wrong duct.

If the wrong duct is cut in a laparoascopic cholecystecomy it must be recognized and repaired immediately. Failure to recognize an injury to a duct can lead to infection, excessive scarring and even death.

Our South Florida hospital injury law firm recommends that before undergoing a procedure to remove a gallbladder to ask your surgeon several important questions:

1. How many procedures have you performed?
2. How many times have you injured or cut the wrong duct?
3. Will the procedure be videotaped? Surprisingly many doctors and hospitals refuse to videotape the procedure for fear that it will be used to prosecute a Florida medical malpractice case. The videotape is essential information that can be provided to a reconstructive surgeon in case of a mishap.
4. Determine who will be assisting the surgeon in the surgery. The role of the surgical assistant is crucial in identifying the correct anatomy.
5. Determine if the hospital is a tertiary facility. This indicates the level of care that the hospital is qualified to provide.
6. Request a surgeon familiar with duct repairs to handle the case in the event of a duct injury. Often general surgeons are unfamiliar with the distinctly different technique required to repair a bile duct injury.
7. What is the average length of stay at the particular hospital.
8. What is the number of hospitalizations for the procedure.
9. Is the surgeon Board Certified in general surgery?
10. Is the surgeon insured for malpractice?

As a Miami lawyer who sues surgeons, I especially recommend that following the procedure you advise your surgeon, nurse and attending physician in the event that your pain gets worse, you have a fever, vomit, experience diarrhea, drainage from the incision or no bowel movement. These might be symptoms of a bile duct injury that can be life threatening if not treated immediately and properly.

View more videos at: http://nbcmiami.com.

Our Miami law firm currently represents a Miami family for the wrongful death of a Miami husaband and father following a botched cholecystectomy at a North Shore Medical Center, a local hospital. According to the Agency for Health Care (AHCA) website, North Shore Medical Center had 71 hospitalizations for laparoscopic gall bladder removal for patients age 18-64 in 2010 with the highest cost of hospitalization of $89,778 and 5.2 days of stay.

As a Coral Gables hospital mistake lawyer, I am confused by President Obama's decision to remove the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) from the web. The NPDB provided the public with various information about doctors, disciplinary actions and malpractice verdicts in general. Patients, lawyers and journalists have used the data bank to obtain information about doctors and trends in medical malpractice.

The NPDB has valuable information and reports. For example, it shows that, as of April 2011, Florida has received 126 medical malpractice reports against nurse midwives and 132 medical malpractice reports against nurse anesthetists. Unfortunately, the information is only available to hospitals, health care providers, State and Federal health care agencies, and quality improvement organizations. Patients and their attorneys are only eligible to receive certain information under very limited circumstances.

In response to a complaint lodged by a neurosurgeon, the Health Resources and Services Administration, which is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Resources removed public access to the data bank on September 1, 2011.

The Kansas City Star recently reported that many doctors with extensive history of malpractice often go undisciplined. The Star reviewed thousands of records and found that 21 doctors practicing in Kansas and Missouri had at least 10 malpractice payments but never received any discipline by the state health agency.

Our Florida injured patient law firm believes that it is important to provide the public access to transparent information regarding both doctor and hospital conduct to ensure responsibility and keep the public focused on fundamental issues of patient safety. By blocking the public's access to crucial information President Obama and the Department of Health and Human Resources will allow doctors and hospitals to continue to quietly make mistakes that harm and sometimes result in the wrongful death of a patient without public accountability.

Surviving a serious car or motorcycle accident in South Florida with only minor injuries is nothing short of a miracle. However, in Florida, those responsible for causing car accidents are also legally responsible if the injured subsequently suffers sub-standard medical care. Our Florida car crash injury law firm is currently investigating a potential claim where a young mother who survived a crash with seemingly minor injuries may have been exposed to potentially negligent medical care which led to her sudden death. She leaves behind a small son and many unanswered questions.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1997 in the landmark case of Stuart v. Hertz Corp. that if one's injuries are aggravated or increased by a medical mistake, the original tortfeasor is liable. The"Hertz Doctrine" has been applied in cases where the defense argues that the care and treatment a claimant received was not reasonable and necessary. In Nason v. Sharanksi, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge for failing to give the Hertz jury instruction after the defendant in a car accident tried to allege that the plaintiff's neurosurgeon, Dr. Charles Tehofilios, a board certified neurological surgeon performed an unnecessary removal of a herniated disc and two spinal fusions.

Accordingly, those who cause injuries in Florida car accidents are now responsible for any additional injury, or even death, caused by the subsequent medical treatment. This is particularly important in terms of signing releases in car accident claims before a person's injuries are fully diagnosed or treated. Many insurance companies include language in car accident releases that could be used to prevent claims against medical providers for injuries that may not have even occurred yet or for damages that are yet to be diagnosed. We strongly recommend that before signing any release for a car accident that you have it reviewed by experienced and competent Miami car accident lawyer that can protect your legal rights.

Continue reading "When A Doctor's Mistake Kills a Florida Car Accident Victim" »

As a Palm Beach hospital injury attorney, I believe that performing an operation on the wrong patient, site or performing the wrong procedure is a completely avoidable error. When an error or adverse incident happens in a Florida hospital, Florida Statute Section 395.0197 requires hospitals to report certain events called adverse incidents, to the State of Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) within 15 calendar days.

View more videos at: http://nbcmiami.com.

The statute specifically requires that in the event of:

1. Death of a patient;
2. Brain or spinal damage to a patient;
3. Performance of a surgery on the wrong patient;
4. Performance of a wrong-site surgery;
5. Performance of a wrong surgery;
6. Performance of a medically unnecessary surgery;
7. Surgical repair of damage where the damage is not a recognized risk,
8. Procedures to remove unplanned foreign objects.

The Agency for Health Care posts on its website quarterly reports detailing the number of reported events. Unfortunately, the AHCA protects hospitals by not identifying the offending facility by name. Assuming that many events are never reported, the number of statewide incidents for the second quarter of 2011 alone is astonishing. There were 29 reported incidents and a horrifying 16 of those involved foreign objects being left in patients.

One of the few statutes that actually protect patients is Florida Statute Section 395.1051 that requires Florida hospitals to advise patients when an adverse incident has occurred. In my 20 years of representing Florida's victims of medical malpractice, I have never seen a case where a hospital has complied with this provision. The statute is silent as to what penalties if any would befall a hospital that fails to comply with notifying a patient of an adverse event. And, as usual, the statute goes on to exclude the admissibility of any such notification in a civil medical malpractice statute.

As a Florida hospital injury attorney, I strongly recommend patients or their families who believe they have suffered an adverse incident in a Florida Hospital or other licensed facility to immediately consult with an experienced personal injury attorney and to notify the Florida Department of Health of the incident.

Nuestros abogados de muertes injustas reciben varias preguntas a la semana sobre equivocaciones medicas que han matado pacientes. Tristemente, la ley de la Florida previene a muchas victimas obtener justicia.
Por ejemplo: Si un caso de un padre que pierde a un hijo adulto (sobre la edad de 25 anos) sin hijos menores la ley de la Florida de Muertes Injustas prohibe la justicia para estas victimas. Ademas, el Estatuto de la Florida 768.21 previene cualquier recuperacion por un hijo adulto por la perdida de un padre y de un padre por la perdida de un hijo.

Mas sorprendente es, si un padre muere sin familia, ningun reclamo puede ser iniciado.
Como abogado de la Florida de casos de equivocaciones medicas, yo creo que el Estatuto es injusto e inconstitucional porque provee a los medicos y hospitals una capa de protection que ninguna otra profesion tiene.
PREGUNTA: Porque los medicos y hospitals son immune por sus equivocaciones fatales? Si el mismo medico mata a un paciente en el parqueo con su vehiculo y el paciente es un hijo adulto sin sobrevivientes, sus padres pueden recuperar o cobrar por su dolor y sufrimiento. Sin embargo, si el mismo medico mata ese mismo paciente en el hospital por fallar a recetar la medicina requerida o apropiada no se puede hacer ningun reclamo.

Este es otro deslumbrante ejemplo de la desconfianza inherente del sistema tribunal de la Florida y su ilimitada obsession por proteger medicos y hospitals.

Our Miami wrongful death lawyers receive several inquires per week with questions regarding medical mistakes that have killed patients. Sadly, Florida's law prevents many victims from obtaining justice.

For example, if a case involves a parent who has lost an unmarried adult child (over the age of 25) with no minor children Florida's Wrongful Death Act steps in to provide a complete bar to justice for the victims. In addition, Florida Statute §768.21 prevents any recovery by an adult child for the loss of a parent and for a parent for the loss of a child. More incredibly, if a patient dies with no family, no claim can be made.

As a Florida medical mistake lawyer I believe that this statute is unjust and unconstitutional as it provides doctors and hospitals a layer of protection that no other profession enjoys. Why should doctors and hospitals be immune from accountability for their fatal mistakes? If the same doctor kills a patient in the hospital parking lot by running them over and the patient is an adult child with no other survivors, his parents can recover for mental pain and suffering. However, should the same doctor kill the same patient ten feet away in the hospital by failing to prescribe a needed medication, no claim can be made.

This is another glaring example of Florida's inherent distrust of the jury system and its unlimited obsession for protecting doctors and hospitals.

Our Miami plastic surgery lawyers are presently investigating the death of 35-year old Lidvian Zelaya who died as a result of having liposuction and fat reimplementation procedures at the Strax Rejuvenation Center in Lauderhill, Florida.

We believe that people who undergo elective cosmetic surgery should not die and are diligently investigating this case on behalf of Ms. Zelaya's family.

As a Florida medical mistake lawyer, I have seen a lot of cases where doctors and hospitals have committed errors. It is said, "to err is human" and I agree. However, what is unforgivable and inhumane is when Florida health care providers purposely conceal their mistakes causing further injury to the patient physically and potentially destroying any legal remedies the patient may have had in the process.

Florida Statutes Section 95.11 govern the limitation of time that injured patients can initiate claims against health care providers. It dictates, in the most complex language, that essentially injured patients have two years from the date of the alleged injury to initiate a claim. If, however, the injury is intentionally concealed by the doctor, the dead line extends an additional two years from when the injury is discovered--limited to no more than seven years from the date of the mistake.

This means, Florida doctors can escape liability from malpractice if somehow they can hide their mistake from the patient for seven years. Astonishing. To literally add insult to injury, where would one hope to find this bizarre and unjust rule? Certainly not in the medical malpractice section of the Florida Statutes, but rather tucked neatly between statutes of limitations for bond enforcements and prisoner's rights.

Our Miami medical malpractice lawyers always recommend that those suspecting a doctor or hospital has committed an error to seek both immediate medical and legal assistance.