A Florida medical malpractice plaintiff alleged that the defendant doctors were negligent in failing to timely refer Wendy Metzler for a chest CT scan, a delay which deprived her of a chance to have life-saving surgery. The case proceeded to a jury trial and resulted in a complete defense verdict.
Following the verdict, the plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) as to both of the defendant doctors. The trial court ultimately granted the motion as to Defendant Dr. Carrasquillo but denied the motion as to Defendant Dr. Valdes. The trial court thereafter unilaterally determined the plaintiff suffered $1.125 million in damages and entered final judgment against Dr. Carrasquillo and Holy Cross Hospital, Inc. in that amount.
The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth District (“Florida Appellate Court”) stated in its January 3, 2024 opinion: “As reflected in the facts, the crux of Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Doctors was that they failed to recognize the urgency for a chest CT scan. To that end, Plaintiff primarily relied on the expert testimony of Dr. Gold
who opined that because the MRI report listed an intramural hematoma as a possible diagnosis, the Defendant Doctors should have recognized the report indicated a medical emergency. However, Dr. Gold also acknowledged during cross-examination that the MRI report described the hematoma as “chronic” as opposed to acute and that the words “urgent” and/or “stat” did not appear in the report. Moreover, Plaintiff’s own radiology expert testified that listing the intramural hematoma as the third possible diagnosis in the MRI report made the situation seem less severe than it was, which in turn led to a “failure to communicate the gravity of the situation” to the Defendant Doctors. The radiology expert further agreed that “the urgency on [the MRI] report was not palpable in terms of ordering a CT scan.” Finally, Plaintiff’s vascular surgeon expert acknowledged that the aortic condition present in this case is uncommon and would not be an immediate consideration when a patient is complaining of back pain. In other words, there were discrepancies within the testimony of Plaintiff’s own expert witnesses as to whether the MRI report conveyed a medical emergency. These discrepancies were further accentuated by the testimony of the Defendant Doctors who both testified that nothing in the MRI report indicated Mrs. Metzler’s condition was critical and/or that a chest CT scan was urgently needed.”
“Simply put, the experts’ testimony, together with the Defendant Doctors’ individual denials, created conflicts in the evidence which only the jury, and not the trial court, could resolve. Accordingly, by granting the motion for JNOV as to Dr. Carrasquillo, the trial court committed reversible error by failing to resolve the conflicts in the evidence in favor of
the non-moving party.”
The Florida Appellate Court further stated: “Although moot in light of our holding, we are compelled to clarify that even if we were to affirm the final judgment granting JNOV as to Dr. Carrasquillo, under no circumstances could the trial judge unilaterally determine and award damages. Where the jury has considered the evidence and awarded zero damages, it is not the trial judge’s role to reweigh the evidence and substitute his or her own judgment in determining damages,”
Carrasquillo, M.D. v. Metzler, Nos. 4D2022-2019 and 4D2022-2078.
If you or a loved one have suffered serious harm (or worse) as a result of medical negligence in Florida or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Florida medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.