Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Igac

741 So. 2d 1215, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12741, 1999 WL 765944
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 29, 1999·No. No. 98-745·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Nothing in the record supports a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983). Moreover, here, there was only one lost MRI film. We cannot conclude that this is one of “those extremely rare instances that the evidence establishes an intentional interference with a party’s access to critical medical records .... ” Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla.1987). Hence, there was no abuse of discretion in failing to give the requested Valcin instruction.

Appellant’s remaining points lack merit.

Affirmed.

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

Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Igac, 741 So. 2d 1215, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12741, 1999 WL 765944 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

741 So. 2d 1215 (Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Igac) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ANESTHESIOLOGY CARE CONSULTANTS v. Kretzer
802 So. 2d 346 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)