Hoelterhoff v. Vigderman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoelterhoff v. Vigderman

375 So. 2d 575, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15849

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1360

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 375 So. 2d 575 (Hoelterhoff v. Vigderman) 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

Hoelterhoff v. Vigderman, 375 So. 2d 575, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15849 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice the appellants’ fifth amended complaint. Despite the verbiage and conclusions, this complaint alleges at a minimum the following facts: Dr. D. L. Vigderman was called in as a consulting osteopathic physician to examine and treat for compensation Lawrence F. Hoelterhoff, a minor. He improperly diagnosed the patient’s condition and negligently directed the administration of insulin and an excessive amount of dextrose, both of which were contraindicated by the patient’s symptoms. He also negligently prescribed an excessive amount of enumerated drugs and too great a volume of liquid over a short period of time. Dr. Vigderman’s improper diagnosis and treatment constituted a departure from the applicable standard of care, and the foregoing medications directly resulted in convulsions and other injuries permanent in nature. These allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action for malpractice. See Balbontin v. Porias, 215 So.2d 732 (Fla.1968).

REVERSED.

GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice the appellants’ fifth amended complaint. Despite the verbiage and conclusions, this complaint alleges at a minimum the following facts: Dr. D. L. Vigderman was called in as a consulting osteopathic physician to examine and treat for compensation Lawrence F. Hoelterhoff, a minor. He improperly diagnosed the patient’s condition and negligently directed the administration of insulin and an excessive amount of dextrose, both of which were contraindicated by the patient’s symptoms. He also negligently prescribed an excessive amount of enumerated drugs and too great a volume of liquid over a short period of time. Dr. Vigderman’s improper diagnosis and treatment constituted a departure from the applicable standard of care, and the foregoing medications directly resulted in convulsions and other injuries permanent in nature. These allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action for malpractice. See Balbontin v. Porias, 215 So.2d 732 (Fla.1968).

REVERSED.

GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 So. 2d 575, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoelterhoff-v-vigderman-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack