Norton v. SOUTH MIAMI HOSP. FOUNDATION, INC.

375 So. 2d 42
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 18, 1979
Docket78-1916
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 375 So. 2d 42 (Norton v. SOUTH MIAMI HOSP. FOUNDATION, INC.) 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
Norton v. SOUTH MIAMI HOSP. FOUNDATION, INC., 375 So. 2d 42 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

375 So.2d 42 (1979)

Roland A. NORTON and Georgia Norton, His Wife, Appellants,
v.
SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 78-1916.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

September 18, 1979.

Joseph C. Brannen, Miami, for appellants.

Adams & Ward and Amy Sheild Levine, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Riccobono v. Cordis Corporation, 341 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

SCHWARTZ, Judge (specially concurring).

The plaintiff-appellant was allegedly injured because of the mechanical failure of a special table called a Phillips Unit to which he was strapped during the taking of a myelogram at the defendant hospital. I do not believe that his action for damages against the hospital, based essentially upon a claim of improper maintenance of its equipment, is one for "malpractice" which must first be submitted to mediation under Sec. 768.44(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1977). See St. Vincent's Medical Center v. Oakley, 371 So.2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Jackson v. Biscayne Medical Center, Inc., 347 So.2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In Riccobono v. Cordis Corp., 341 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), however, this court held otherwise in an indistinguishable factual situation. Solely because we are bound by the Riccobono decision,[1] I therefore concur in the affirmance of the trial court's action in dismissing the complaint because mediation had not first been pursued.

NOTES

[1] See also Schoenbrod v. O'Neil, 375 So.2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (specially concurring opinion); Valenstein v. Doctors Hospital, 372 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (specially concurring opinion); Diners Club, Inc. v. Brachvogel, 370 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (specially concurring opinion).

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

Related

Cannon v. McKen
459 A.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1983)
Continental Video Corp. v. Honeywell, Inc.
422 So. 2d 35 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Zobac v. SOUTHEASTERN HOSPITAL DIST., ETC.
382 So. 2d 829 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Schoenbrod v. O'Neill
375 So. 2d 42 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
375 So. 2d 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-south-miami-hosp-foundation-inc-fladistctapp-1979.