Green v. EMSA Ltd. Partnership

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Green v. EMSA Ltd. Partnership

725 So. 2d 1194, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16444, 1998 WL 904109

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 30, 1998

DocketNo. 98-664

StatusPublished

This text of 725 So. 2d 1194 (Green v. EMSA Ltd. Partnership) 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

Green v. EMSA Ltd. Partnership, 725 So. 2d 1194, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16444, 1998 WL 904109 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice case appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for one of the deceased patient’s treating physicians, Dr. Larry Katz. A co-defendant, the medical group of which Dr. Katz was a member, EMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Skylake Medical Group, cross appeals from a similar judgment entered against it in the plaintiffs favor.

Rejecting the sole point on direct appeal, we first find no harmful error in the submission to the jury, in response to its specific request during its deliberations, of a chart used by defense counsel during the trial. See Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp., 641 So.2d 114, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(Gersten, J., specially concurring), review denied, 650 So.2d 989 (Fla.1994); Newberry Square Dev. Corp. v. Southern Landmark, Inc., 578 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), cause dismissed, 584 So.2d 999 (Fla.1991). Hence, the judgment in Dr. Katz’s favor is affirmed.

We reach the contrary conclusion on EMSA’s cross-appeal. The verdict for Dr. Katz itself precluded any recovery based on vicarious liability for his actions upon his group, EMSA. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985); Williams v. Hines, 80 Fla. 690, 86 So. 695 (1920); City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 166 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Because we find no competent evidence to sustain a finding that EMSA was itself guilty of any additional, independent, actionable breach of duty, see Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So.2d 403 (Fla.1954); City of Coral Gables v. Logan, 317 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 19 (Fla.1976), the judgment against it cannot stand.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice case appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for one of the deceased patient’s treating physicians, Dr. Larry Katz. A co-defendant, the medical group of which Dr. Katz was a member, EMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Skylake Medical Group, cross appeals from a similar judgment entered against it in the plaintiffs favor.

Rejecting the sole point on direct appeal, we first find no harmful error in the submission to the jury, in response to its specific request during its deliberations, of a chart used by defense counsel during the trial. See Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp., 641 So.2d 114, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(Gersten, J., specially concurring), review denied, 650 So.2d 989 (Fla.1994); Newberry Square Dev. Corp. v. Southern Landmark, Inc., 578 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), cause dismissed, 584 So.2d 999 (Fla.1991). Hence, the judgment in Dr. Katz’s favor is affirmed.

We reach the contrary conclusion on EMSA’s cross-appeal. The verdict for Dr. Katz itself precluded any recovery based on vicarious liability for his actions upon his group, EMSA. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985); Williams v. Hines, 80 Fla. 690, 86 So. 695 (1920); City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 166 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Because we find no competent evidence to sustain a finding that EMSA was itself guilty of any additional, independent, actionable breach of duty, see Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So.2d 403 (Fla.1954); City of Coral Gables v. Logan, 317 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 19 (Fla.1976), the judgment against it cannot stand.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 1194, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16444, 1998 WL 904109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-emsa-ltd-partnership-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack