Many Florida hospitals have teaching affiliations with medical schools. This means that faculty and residents employed by medical school have staff privileges at the hospital. But the hospital is not necessarily responsible for any acts of medical malpractice committed by such doctors.

Tampa Hospital Off the Hook for Fatal Colon Cancer Surgery

Specifically, Florida law absolves a hospital of malpractice liability if it provides “separate written conspicuous notice” to the patient that he or she is receiving care from the medical school and not the hospital. If such notice is properly given, the medical school and its sponsoring university’s board of trustees are deemed to be solely responsible for any negligence on the part of its doctors.

A Florida appeals court recently addressed the application of this law in a tragic medical malpractice case. The plaintiff is a widower whose wife died during an operation at a Tampa hospital. The wife initially sought care in the hospital’s emergency department, presenting with symptoms of stomach ache and nausea. It turned out to be colon cancer.

More than a week later, two doctors operated to remove the cancer. During the procedure, the victim “sustained a tear to the wall of her inferior vena ceva,” the largest vein in the human body. She subsequently bled out on the operating table.

The two surgeons were employed by the University of South Florida’s medical school. The university had a teaching affiliate agreement with the hospital. The widower sued all of these parties for medical malpractice in the death of his wife.

The hospital moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The widower appealed. In an August 24 opinion, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The Second District noted the plaintiff’s wife “received three separate notices” prior to surgery informing her that the surgeons were affiliated with the university and not the hospital. This was more than sufficient to comply with the requirements of Florida law. Indeed, the decedent signed a form acknowledging that she read and understood these notices.

The widower argued that even if the surgeons were employees of the university, the hospital had a “nondelegable duty to provide nonnegligent surgical care” to his wife. The Second District disagreed. Once again, Florida law expressly allows hospitals to delegate liability in the manner it did. In addition, the court observed the hospital did not assume “any contractual obligations” with respect to the cancer surgery. The court further rejected the widower’s claim that federal Medicare law prevented the hospital from delegating liability: Noting that no other Florida court had ever made such a finding, “We decline the invitation to be the first.”

Get Help From a Florida Medical Malpractice Lawyer

The Second District’s decision only applies to the hospital. It does not absolve the university or its surgeons of any potential medical malpractice liability. But this decision emphasizes how Florida law often restricts the ability of malpractice victims, and their families, to hold all medical providers accountable for their actions. That is why, if you find yourself in this type of situation and need advice from an experienced Clearwater medical malpractice attorney, contact the Law Office of Paul B. Genet, P.A., at 727-510-8802.

Depression and other types of mental illness can have devastating consequences for its victims. Physicians who treat mental illness therefore have a special responsibility to ensure their own actions do not aggravate a patient’s condition. Tragically there are cases where a physician’s medical malpractice has led patients to commit suicide.

Did “Abruptly” Taking Patient Off Antidepressants Kill Her?

The Florida Supreme Court recently addressed such a case. The plaintiff is a widower who also serves as the personal representative for his late wife’s estate. The plaintiff has alleged that malpractice on the part of the defendant, his wife’s former physician, was the proximate cause of her suicide.

The day before the suicide, the deceased contacted the defendant’s office. She had been taking a prescription anti-depressant, but she complained about multiple side effects and had stopped using the drug as a result. After this information was relayed to the defendant, he prescribed a different drug and referred the decedent to a specialist to treat one of the reported side effects.

Sadly, the next day the plaintiff found his wife’s body “hanging in their garage,” according to court records. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant, arguing that he “breached the applicable standard of care,” and that this was the “proximate cause” of the decedent’s suicide. The defendant, in response, argued that he had no “legal duty” to prevent the victim’s death.

The trial court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. On appeal, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed and returned the case for trial. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, noting the Second District’s interpretation of the law differed from that of the First District Court of Appeal in a previous case.

In a unanimous August 25 opinion, the Supreme Court decided the Second District was right, and therefore the plaintiff could proceed with his medical malpractice claim. The Supreme Court noted the issue here was not whether the defendant had a duty to prevent the suicide of the plaintiff’s wife—there was not, given that she was an outpatient—but rather whether the defendant failed in his professional duty to provide an appropriate standard of care.

According to expert testimony presented by the plaintiff before the trial court, the defendant “knew that patients who stopped taking [the antidepressant initially prescribed to the decedent] abruptly had an increased risk of suicide.” Consequently, the expert testified that the decedent’s decision to stop taking the drug—which was endorsed by the defendant—was a “contributing factor” in her suicide. On this basis, the Supreme Court said the plaintiff had presented a genuine issue of fact for a jury to decide.

Get Help From a Florida Medical Malpractice Lawyer

Losing a loved one to mental illness is never easy. But when such a loss is aggravated by a physician’s failure to provide appropriate medical care, it is important to hold such negligence accountable. If you or a family member have been injured due to negligence and need to speak with an experienced Clearwater medical malpractice attorney, contact the Law Office of Paul B. Genet, P.A., today at 727-510-8802.

Disputed Consent Form Protects Hospital, Doctor From Malpractice Liability

Florida’s pre-suit requirements frequently keep valid malpractice and wrongful death cases out of court. Consider a recent decision by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals. In 2010, Fort Lauderdale police brought a man exhibiting “suicidal ideations and bizarre behavior” to a mental health facility. Under Florida’s Mental Health Act—commonly known as the Baker Act—law enforcement may initiate an involuntary examination of a person who is believed to have a mental illness and poses a potential risk of harm to himself or others.

A Baker Act examination may not last more than 72 hours, after which a court order is necessary to continue any involuntary commitment. In this case, a doctor at the mental health facility allegedly convinced the man to sign a “consent form for voluntary admission to the facility,” thereby eliminating the need for a court hearing. The man was admitted for some period of time but was later released.

Approximately two weeks after the man was discharged from the mental health facility, he committed suicide. His estate subsequently sued the hospital and the doctor who treated him. In brief, the lawsuit accused the doctor of falsely declaring the decedent was mentally competent to consent to his voluntary admission. Had the doctor determined the man was not competent, the Baker Act would have applied and provided certain “safety precautions,” such as require his family to be notified of his condition. By not following the Baker Act, the lawsuit claimed the defendants were responsible for the man’s death.

The Florida courts dismissed the case, not due to the merits, but because it classified the lawsuit as one for “medical malpractice” that did not comply with the state’s pre-suit requirements. The estate argued this was not a malpractice case, but the Fourth District disagreed. In a July 20 opinion, the court said at its core, the estate’s lawsuit revolves around the doctor’s “medical evaluation which led to the consent form” being signed by the decedent. Assuming the doctor did somehow falsify his evaluation, that would be a claim “involving medical judgment and thus would constitute an allegation of malpractice.”

A Florida Medical Malpractice Attorney Can Help

It is always frustrating when a family grieving the loss of a loved one is denied access to justice. That is why if you find yourself in a similar situation, it is important you speak with an experienced Clearwater medical malpractice attorney who understands Florida law and knows how to avoid potential traps. Contact the Law Office of Paul B. Genet, P.A., at 727-510-8802 today if you or someone you know has been hurt due to medical malpractice.