Bloch v. Addis
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Before SCHWARTZ; DANIEL S. PEARSON |
| Citation | Bloch v. Addis, 493 So.2d 539, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1927 (Fla. App. 1986) |
| Decision Date | 09 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1172,85-1172 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1927 Edward J. BLOCH, M.D., Appellant, v. Kersten Watson ADDIS, Appellee. |
Lanza, Sevier & O'Connor, Coral Gables, Daniels & Hicks and Ralph O. Anderson, Miami, for appellant.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Herbert W. Virgin, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
In this medical malpractice action, we find fundamental error because the clearly improper final argument of the attorney for the plaintiff did so insidiously divert the jury from its duty to decide the question properly before it--that is, whether the defendant doctor was guilty of negligence which caused nerve damage to the plaintiff's wrist--that it is far more likely that the jury decided that, negligence or injury aside, the defendant should be fiscally punished for the supposed testimonial transgressions of a defense expert witness whose alleged deceit, according to the attorney's unsubstantiated argument, was born at some imagined conspiratorial country club meeting between the defendant and his medical experts and was personally known to the non-testifying plaintiff's attorney. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The expert witness in question was Dr. Michael Goodson, a neurologist who had examined the plaintiff a week before the trial began and had concluded that she suffered from a carpal tunnel syndrome. In Dr. Goodson's opinion, the problem with the plaintiff's wrist and hand derived from her occupation and was not caused by the shoulder surgery performed by the defendant. According to Goodson, the problem was relatively minor.
It was apparently the theory of plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Fred M. Kray, that Goodson had tailored his testimony to conform to an electromyographic (EMG) study conducted by another neurologist, the results of which were not made known to Goodson until after he had examined the plaintiff. In furtherance of this theory, Kray accused Goodson of failing to mention carpal tunnel syndrome in a telephone conversation with Kray shortly after Goodson had examined the plaintiff. Kray also accused Goodson of having made, on the day of trial, handwritten notes reflecting the carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis and passing off these notes as if made at or about the time Goodson examined the plaintiff.
The witness explained:
The interrogation continued:
....
....
This, then, is the backdrop against which the plaintiff's final argument was given: there was no evidence in the case that Dr. Goodson failed to inform Kray on the telephone of his carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis; there was no evidence in the case that Dr. Goodson wrote his examination notes at the time of trial; and the only evidence in the case--Dr. Goodson's testimony under oath--was that these insinuations were untrue. Despite this, Kray argued:
....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc.
...See also Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock, 640 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 649 So.2d 232 (Fla.1994); and Bloch v. Addis, 493 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). It seems to me that the principal defect in these cases, as with the panel's decision, is that they use individual judges......
-
Murphy v. International Robotics Systems, Inc.
...in evidence nor true. Other cases in which the third district has reversed without requiring an objection include Bloch v. Addis, 493 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(defense counsel told jury about a conversation he had with plaintiff's expert neurologist in which the expert did not mention th......
-
Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock
...who supplies an arena in which parties may fight it out on unseemly terms of their choosing...." Borden, Inc. at 851. In Bloch v. Addis, 493 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District reemphasized that, even absent objection, it would not condone inflammatory closing arguments. We agr......
-
SCRIPA v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 41626-0-I
...10 Report of Proceedings at 212-13 (italics ours).[61] *fn16 Senn v. Scudieri, 165 A.D.2d 346, 567 N.Y.S. 2d 665 (1991); Bloch v. Addis, 493 So.2d 539 (Fla. App. 1986); Silva v. Nightingale, 619 So. 2d 4 (Fla. App. 1993).[62] *fn17 Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn.2d 251, 259-60, 830 P.2d 646 (19......
-
Calling the witness a liar during closing argument: the Florida Supreme Court's final approval.
...the "outrageousness" of defendant asserting contributory negligence, improperly expressed personal opinions of counsel); Bloch v. Addis, 493 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1986) (holding it was improper for counsel to reveal telephone conversations he had with plaintiffs expert, when not admitt......