Anderson v. Gordon
| Citation | 334 So.2d 107 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--717,75--717 |
| Parties | Kathleen ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Dr. Howard GORDON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman, Miami, and Celeste Hardee, Coconut Grove, for appellant.
Magill & Sevier, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Plaintiff in a medical malpractice action appeals an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for the defendant.
The unfortunate series of events giving rise to this litigation began when plaintiff-appellant, Kathleen Anderson, consulted with Dr. Howard Gordon, defendant-appellee, for the purpose of having her breasts reduced and consented to his performing a reduction mammoplasty (a breast reduction operation). Employing the Strombeck technique which helps to maintain the patients' circulatory system in the breasts, thus reducing post operative necrosis (deadening of tissue), the defendant performed a 2 1/2 hour operation removing more than 1,500 grams of tissue. Unfortunately, after the surgery plaintiff lost 30% Additional breast tissue due to impaired circulation resulting in scarred, unevenly shaped breasts. Plaintiff contends the defendant committed malpractice through the misapplication of an accepted surgical procedure known as the Strombeck technique. At trial, plaintiff requested that an instruction on res ipsa loquitur be given to the jury which was refused. The jury returned a verdict finding for the defendant and final judgment was entered. Her motion for new trial being denied, plaintiff perfected this appeal and urges as reversible error the failure to instruct the jury on the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur.
To be entitled to an instruction on the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur, plaintiff's proof must show that the circumstances eliminate every other conclusion save that the defendant was at fault. See McKinney Supply Co. v. Orovitz, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 209 and Martin v. Powell, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 610. Further, in medical malpractice actions the rule may be invoked only where a layman is able to say as a matter of common knowledge and observation that the consequences of the professonal treatment were not such as ordinarily would have followed if due care had been exercised. The rule, however, may not be applied where expert medical evidence is required to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sides v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, SC 88948.
...that res ipsa is limited to those cases where lay knowledge would permit an inference of negligence, see e.g., Florida, Anderson v. Gordon, 334 So.2d 107, 109 (Fla.App.1976); Maryland, Orkin v. Holy Cross Hosp., 318 Md. 429, 569 A.2d 207, 209 (1990); North Carolina, Bowlin v. Duke Universit......
-
Leigh v. Schwartz
...... question." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks. omitted.) Gordon v. Glass , 66 Conn.App. 852, 856,. 785 A.2d 1220 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 909, 789 A.2d. 994 (2002). . . ... expert testimony necessarily precludes the application of res. ipsa loquitur: " Florida, see Anderson v. Gordon , 334 So.2d 107, 109 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1976);. Idaho, see Le Pelley v. Grefenson , 101 Idaho 422,. 426, 614 P.2d 962, ......
-
Seavers v Oak Ridge Methodist Med. Ctr.
...malpractice cases where expert testimony is required. Several states also follow this restrictive view. See Anderson v. Gordon, 334 So. 2d 107, 109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976); Kapsch v. Stowers, 434 S.E.2d 539, 540 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993); Le Pelley v. Grefenson, 614 P.2d 962, 966 (Idaho 1980);......
-
Connors v. University Associates In Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc.
...States adopting the view that expert testimony necessarily precludes the res ipsa inference include: Florida, see Anderson v. Gordon, 334 So.2d 107, 109 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Idaho, see Le Pelley v. Grefenson, 101 Idaho 422, 426, 614 P.2d 962, 966 (1980); Iowa, see Forsmark v. State, 349 ......