Dillard v. Choronzy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dillard v. Choronzy

584 So. 2d 240, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550, 1991 WL 169542

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1529

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 584 So. 2d 240 (Dillard v. Choronzy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dillard v. Choronzy, 584 So. 2d 240, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550, 1991 WL 169542 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion for clarification, we withdraw our prior opinion and reissue it as follows.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeals from an order which, inter alia, sets aside a jury verdict, grants a new trial, and denies a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a medical malpractice case. The evidence indicated that the patient, Ann Choronzy, suffered a stroke which could have been prevented had a CAT scan been performed by Humana of Florida, Inc. (a Daytona Beach hospital) as ordered by Dillard, a staff physician. We reverse those portions of the order which set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial, but affirm the order in all other respects. We find the reasons are not sufficient in this case for granting a new trial.

Upon a review of the record, we think there is a reasonable and adequate basis to support the jury’s conclusion that the doctor was not negligent but the hospital was negligent and one hundred percent liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.¹ We also do not agree that counsel’s remarks (taken in context) constituted a violation of the “Golden Rule” prohibition. Even if they did, they were not so egregious as to merit a new trial. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial for that reason. See, e.g., Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980).

We remand this cause to the trial court with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions.

GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion for clarification, we withdraw our prior opinion and reissue it as follows.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeals from an order which, inter alia, sets aside a jury verdict, grants a new trial, and denies a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a medical malpractice case. The evidence indicated that the patient, Ann Choronzy, suffered a stroke which could have been prevented had a CAT scan been performed by Humana of Florida, Inc. (a Daytona Beach hospital) as ordered by Dillard, a staff physician. We reverse those portions of the order which set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial, but affirm the order in all other respects. We find the reasons are not sufficient in this case for granting a new trial.

Upon a review of the record, we think there is a reasonable and adequate basis to support the jury’s conclusion that the doctor was not negligent but the hospital was negligent and one hundred percent liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.¹ We also do not agree that counsel’s remarks (taken in context) constituted a violation of the “Golden Rule” prohibition. Even if they did, they were not so egregious as to merit a new trial. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial for that reason. See, e.g., Smith v. Brown, 525 So.2d 868 (Fla.1988); Ford Motor Co. v. Kikis, 401 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So.2d 145 (Fla.1980).

We remand this cause to the trial court with directions to reinstate the jury verdict.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions.

GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 So. 2d 240, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550, 1991 WL 169542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillard-v-choronzy-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack