McKeithan ex rel. McKeithan v. HCA Health Services of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McKeithan ex rel. McKeithan v. HCA Health Services of Florida

879 So. 2d 47, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9185, 2004 WL 1462100

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-2154

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 879 So. 2d 47 (McKeithan ex rel. McKeithan v. HCA Health Services of Florida) 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

McKeithan ex rel. McKeithan v. HCA Health Services of Florida, 879 So. 2d 47, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9185, 2004 WL 1462100 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment finding-HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. not liable for the care and treatment of Davion McKeithan. The trial court did not err in granting HCA’s motion for directed verdict for two reasons. First, the plaintiffs presented no competent testimony as to causation, that had the nurses accessed the chain of command, such conduct would likely have led to a different outcome for the patient. Second, under Ewing v. Sellinger, 758 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the failure of the nurses to access the chain of command would have affected the treatment decisions of the treating physician, who testified at trial.

There was no error in allowing Dr. Menkes to offer a supplemental opinion; the doctor based his opinion in part upon the deposition of another doctor, who testified at trial. The opinions of the other doctor, a pediatric neuroradiologist, are of the type reasonably relied upon by a pediatric neurologist in giving an opinion.

Finally, we find no error in the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict on the issue of the supervision of the graduate nurse. HCA presented evidence of supervision sufficient to submit the issue to the jury. The nurses involved testified that although they did not document the extent of their supervisor/graduate nurse relationship, the supervisor was routinely and customarily involved in the care of all patients within the unit.

[49]*49Although section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2003), does not apply to the routine practice of an individual, it is “left to the court to determine as a matter of circumstantial evidence whether there was sufficient probative value to allow the admission of the habit evidence.” ChaRles W. EhRHARDT, FLORIDA EVIDENCE § 406.1, at 255 (2002 ed). The trial court did not err in admitting the nurses’ testimony.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur. KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment finding-HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. not liable for the care and treatment of Davion McKeithan. The trial court did not err in granting HCA’s motion for directed verdict for two reasons. First, the plaintiffs presented no competent testimony as to causation, that had the nurses accessed the chain of command, such conduct would likely have led to a different outcome for the patient. Second, under Ewing v. Sellinger, 758 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the failure of the nurses to access the chain of command would have affected the treatment decisions of the treating physician, who testified at trial.

There was no error in allowing Dr. Menkes to offer a supplemental opinion; the doctor based his opinion in part upon the deposition of another doctor, who testified at trial. The opinions of the other doctor, a pediatric neuroradiologist, are of the type reasonably relied upon by a pediatric neurologist in giving an opinion.

Finally, we find no error in the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict on the issue of the supervision of the graduate nurse. HCA presented evidence of supervision sufficient to submit the issue to the jury. The nurses involved testified that although they did not document the extent of their supervisor/graduate nurse relationship, the supervisor was routinely and customarily involved in the care of all patients within the unit.

[49]*49Although section 90.406, Florida Statutes (2003), does not apply to the routine practice of an individual, it is “left to the court to determine as a matter of circumstantial evidence whether there was sufficient probative value to allow the admission of the habit evidence.” ChaRles W. EhRHARDT, FLORIDA EVIDENCE § 406.1, at 255 (2002 ed). The trial court did not err in admitting the nurses’ testimony.

AFFIRMED.

POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur. KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

879 So. 2d 47, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9185, 2004 WL 1462100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeithan-ex-rel-mckeithan-v-hca-health-services-of-florida-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack