Jancisko v. Levy

517 So. 2d 41, 1987 WL 1956
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 1, 1987
Docket87-334
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 517 So. 2d 41 (Jancisko v. Levy) 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
Jancisko v. Levy, 517 So. 2d 41, 1987 WL 1956 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

517 So.2d 41 (1987)

Deborah JANCISKO, F/K/a Deborah Burton Porter, Appellant,
v.
Joseph S. LEVY, M.D., Joseph S. Levy, M.D., P.A., and Dr. Lynette Sieracki, Appellees.

No. 87-334.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 1, 1987.
Rehearing Denied January 22, 1988.

Murray P. Yanks, James C. Blecke, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl, Conrad, Scherer & James and Bonnie Eyler, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Joseph S. Levy, M.D., and Lynette Sieracki, D.O., in this medical malpractice action, is reversed. We reach this result because genuine issues of material fact were raised in the record to withstand defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Expert testimony, supported by discovery on file, questioned the standard of health care services rendered to Deborah Jancisko. The pleadings and depositions also raised substantial fact issues as to whether the injury suffered by Miss Jancisko was due to a negligent retraction of her brachial plexus during surgery by doctors Levy and Sieracki. Consequently, whether or not the physicians exercised the required degree of care was a question of fact precluding summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966); Shores v. Wegmann, 370 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Where material issues of fact are raised, a resolution by trial is necessary. Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1987); see Atkins v. Humes, 110 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1959). Florida law has long provided:

If the evidence is conflicting or will permit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issues, it should be submitted to a jury as a question of fact to be determined by it, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the Court as a question of law.

Saunders v. Lischkoff, 137 Fla. 826, 188 So. 815, 820 (1939). By not establishing there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, the defendants below failed to satisfy their burden of proof in order to be entitled to a summary judgment. See Holl, 191 So.2d at 43; Gruber v. Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, 487 So.2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Williams v. Florida Realty & Management Co., 272 So.2d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The summary judgment herein is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

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

Related

Cheng v. Sirichoke
745 So. 2d 1152 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Baker v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
661 So. 2d 128 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Chelton v. TALLAHASSEE-LEON CTY., ETC.
525 So. 2d 972 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
517 So. 2d 41, 1987 WL 1956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jancisko-v-levy-fladistctapp-1987.