Robinson v. Sparer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robinson v. Sparer

365 So. 2d 438, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17143

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 1978

DocketNo. 78-540

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 365 So. 2d 438 (Robinson v. Sparer) 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

Robinson v. Sparer, 365 So. 2d 438, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17143 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Julius P. Robinson, appeals a summary final judgment for the defendant, William Sparer, M. D., in a medical malpractice action. The complaint alleged negligence in the treatment of difficulties “in the general area of the nose.” The [439]*439summary final judgment was entered on the basis of a holding that the evidentiary matters before the court upon the motion demonstrated without genuine issue of material fact that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The record demonstrates without conflict that the plaintiff was aware of, and claimed damage because of, treatment and consultation with another physician more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The judgment is affirmed upon the basis of Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corporation, 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); and Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Julius P. Robinson, appeals a summary final judgment for the defendant, William Sparer, M. D., in a medical malpractice action. The complaint alleged negligence in the treatment of difficulties “in the general area of the nose.” The [439]*439summary final judgment was entered on the basis of a holding that the evidentiary matters before the court upon the motion demonstrated without genuine issue of material fact that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The record demonstrates without conflict that the plaintiff was aware of, and claimed damage because of, treatment and consultation with another physician more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The judgment is affirmed upon the basis of Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corporation, 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); and Section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 So. 2d 438, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-sparer-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack