Jhagroo v. Sinclair

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jhagroo v. Sinclair

702 So. 2d 254, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13281, 1997 WL 731735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1997

DocketNo. 97-2066

StatusPublished

This text of 702 So. 2d 254 (Jhagroo v. Sinclair) 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

Jhagroo v. Sinclair, 702 So. 2d 254, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13281, 1997 WL 731735 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. The defendant opposed the motion by filing the affidavit of a medical expert who stated his opinion that the treatment rendered by the defendant did not cause the condition that led to the loss of the plaintiffs finger.

The defense expert did not state his opinion based on a “reasonable degree of medical probability,” but that omission did not render his affidavit legally insufficient. The standard under Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act, Florida Statutes section 766.102(1)(1995), is proof “by the greater weight of the evidence.” In Haas v. Zaccaria, 659 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 669 So.2d 253 (Fla.1996), this court held that under this standard, the defendant in a medical malpractice case does not have the burden at trial of proving by a “reasonable degree of medical probability” that some other factor caused the patient’s loss. If “reasonable medical probability” is not required to defeat a medical malpractice claim at trial, it cannot be required to meet the lesser burden to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

While the expert’s affidavit did not explain the basis for his opinion, it was sufficient to create a factual dispute about causation that prevented summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985)(every possible inference favors the party against whom summary judgment is sought); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 46 (Fla.1966) (the affi[255]*255davits filed by the party opposing summary judgment are to be read liberally).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. The defendant opposed the motion by filing the affidavit of a medical expert who stated his opinion that the treatment rendered by the defendant did not cause the condition that led to the loss of the plaintiffs finger.

The defense expert did not state his opinion based on a “reasonable degree of medical probability,” but that omission did not render his affidavit legally insufficient. The standard under Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act, Florida Statutes section 766.102(1)(1995), is proof “by the greater weight of the evidence.” In Haas v. Zaccaria, 659 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. denied, 669 So.2d 253 (Fla.1996), this court held that under this standard, the defendant in a medical malpractice case does not have the burden at trial of proving by a “reasonable degree of medical probability” that some other factor caused the patient’s loss. If “reasonable medical probability” is not required to defeat a medical malpractice claim at trial, it cannot be required to meet the lesser burden to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

While the expert’s affidavit did not explain the basis for his opinion, it was sufficient to create a factual dispute about causation that prevented summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985)(every possible inference favors the party against whom summary judgment is sought); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 46 (Fla.1966) (the affi[255]*255davits filed by the party opposing summary judgment are to be read liberally).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DELL, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 254, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13281, 1997 WL 731735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jhagroo-v-sinclair-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack