Saunders v. Dickens, 39 Fla. L. Weekly S 494, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 2153 (Fla. July 10, 2014)

A physician cannot insulate himself from liability for negligence by relying on a subsequent treating physician’s testimony that adequate care by the defendant physician would not have altered the subsequent care.

The Florida Supreme Court resolved a split among the District Courts of Appeal on an issue of causation in medical malpractice cases. The plaintiff was treated by a series of physicians. Doctor 2 testified in discovery that he would not have changed the course of treatment even if Doctor 1 had not been negligent. Doctor 2 later settled with the plaintiff prior to trial. Doctor 1 proceeded to trial and argued that the plaintiff cannot show that Doctor 1’s negligence caused the injury because Doctor 2’s subsequent negligent treatment would not have changed, according to the testimony. The Supreme Court rejected this argument because it impermissibly increased the plaintiff’s burden of proof. A medical malpractice plaintiff need only prove the defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care and that adequate care, more likely than not, would have prevented the harm. A plaintiff need not prove that subsequent treatment by a Fabre defendant was not a cause of harm.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2014