A Florida court has ruled in favor of the Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., doing business as Tampa General Hospital (TGH), allowing its motion to dismiss medical negligence claims brought by Audrey and Keith Jackman. The court found that the Jackmans did not meet the necessary legal requirements to support their claims, which is significant for similar medical negligence cases in the state.
The ruling, issued by the District Court of Appeal of Florida on March 10, 2023, addresses the procedural requirements for filing medical negligence lawsuits in Florida. This case is important as it sets a precedent regarding the necessity of expert corroboration in medical negligence claims, impacting how future cases may be approached.
Background
The dispute began after Mrs. Jackman underwent surgery at TGH in August 2018. Following the procedure, she experienced complications that led to a readmission to the hospital. During her treatment, it was discovered that she had developed a brain abscess, requiring multiple surgeries and extensive medical care.
In August 2020, the Jackmans notified TGH of their intent to file a medical negligence lawsuit, alleging that the hospital had breached the standard of care. They claimed that TGH failed to conduct appropriate imaging studies and that the surgical instruments used were not properly sterilized. Initially, their notice lacked expert affidavits, which are required under Florida law to support such claims.
Afterward, the Jackmans provided affidavits from three medical experts, including Dr. Jeffrey Oppenheimer, a neurosurgeon. However, TGH argued that these affidavits did not adequately support the claims made in the Jackmans' complaint, particularly regarding the specific allegations of negligence.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of TGH, granting its petition for writ of certiorari and quashing the lower court's order that denied TGH's motion to dismiss. The judges found that the Jackmans had not met the presuit requirements set forth in section 766.203(2) of the Florida Statutes, which mandates that a medical negligence claimant must provide corroborating expert testimony.
The court stated, "Dr. Oppenheimer's affidavit does not corroborate reasonable grounds to support the Jackmans' medical negligence claims in counts two and three." This ruling emphasizes the importance of following procedural requirements in medical negligence cases.
The judges also noted that Dr. Oppenheimer's affidavit did not address the specific allegations made by the Jackmans regarding the negligence of scrub technicians or the anesthesiologist involved in Mrs. Jackman's care. As a result, the court concluded that the trial court had departed from essential legal requirements by allowing the case to proceed without sufficient expert corroboration.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for medical negligence claims in Florida. It reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to adhere strictly to the presuit requirements established by law, particularly the need for expert affidavits that directly address the allegations made in the complaint. This decision may deter future claims that lack the necessary expert support, as courts are likely to follow this precedent in similar cases.
The ruling also highlights the importance of the qualifications of medical experts in such cases. The court pointed out that Dr. Oppenheimer, being a neurosurgeon, was not qualified to opine on the standard of care for anesthesiologists, which further weakened the Jackmans' claims. This aspect of the ruling may lead to increased scrutiny of expert witnesses in medical negligence cases moving forward.
What's Next
The Jackmans may seek to appeal this decision, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could further clarify the application of presuit requirements in medical negligence claims in Florida.