Medical Malpractice

Protected liability issue in medical malpractice wrongful death action.

A twenty four year old father died of a ruptured aneurism leaving three surviving young children. The jury found the father died as a result of the medical malpractice of the defendant doctors and awarded damages of three million dollars per child for a total of nine million dollars. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the father’s estate on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld the jury verdict of medical malpractice against the defendant doctors, and also upheld the damage award of three million dollars for the older child. The court held the defendant doctors were improperly denied a psychological examination of the two youngest children despite their ages of 2 and 3. The jury verdict for the two younger children was reversed and remanded for a new trial, but on damages only.

Reversed dismissal of patient’s false imprisonment action.

Plaintiff sued a psychiatric hospital, a psychiatrist and a nurse for intentionally and wrongfully preventing her from leaving the facility. The trial court dismissed this action on the pleadings. Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Plaintiff on appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled the Plaintiff’s action must be reinstated because her claims of false imprisonment were not claims of medical malpractice, and the statutory pre-suit requirements for malpractice actions did not govern.

Reinstated medical malpractice action against blood bank.

A young man died as a result of an HIV infected blood transfusion. His estate sued a hospital and blood bank for his wrongful death. The trial court dismissed the action on the basis of the medical malpractice statute of repose (the time limit on bringing an action for medical malpractice). Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the estate on appeal.

The First District Court of Appeal held the statute of repose did not violate the constitutional guarantee of access to courts. However, the court found this statute had no application to the blood bank because it was not a health care provider. Therefore, the action against the blood bank was reinstated.