Borenstein v. Raskin
| Decision Date | 21 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-183,80-183 |
| Citation | 401 So.2d 884 |
| Parties | Gloria BORENSTEIN and Charles Borenstein, Appellants, v. Robert RASKIN, M.D. and Maurice Lebowitz, M.D., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward A. Perse, Cohen & Kokus, Miami, for appellants.
Thornton & Herndon and John Edward Herndon, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Gloria Borenstein, plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment entered against Dr. Robert Raskin, defendant below, in a medical malpractice action in which the jury by special verdict found Dr. Raskin to be five percent negligent and appellant Mrs. Borenstein to be ninety-five percent negligent. Charles Borenstein, the husband, appeals from a jury verdict of zero dollars on his derivative claim for loss of consortium. Appellant Mrs. Borenstein contends that the court erred in instructing the jury on comparative negligence over objection of her counsel.
In February of 1975, Mrs. Borenstein began experiencing low back pain and a tingling sensation in her feet. Mrs. Borenstein saw a family doctor who gave her an injection and advised bed rest. Her condition worsened and she developed sores around her buttocks and groin. On March 11, 1975, Mrs. Borenstein went to see Dr. Greenberg who perceiving a serious problem immediately called Dr. Raskin, a neurologist at Parkway General Hospital, and set up an appointment for Mrs. Borenstein that same day.
Upon examining Mrs. Borenstein, Dr. Raskin could detect only faint femoral pulses in her feet and noted a rash in her groin and hip area. Mrs. Borenstein was hospitalized from March 11, 1975 until April 5, 1975. While hospitalized, Mrs. Borenstein developed discolored areas on her feet. Dr. Raskin indicated these areas would clear up and recommended a dermatologist. From April 5 until April 15, 1975, Mrs. Borenstein treated the lesions on her hips, buttocks and feet at home. On April 25, 1975 Mrs. Borenstein went to see a dermatologist who gave Mrs. Borenstein instructions for at-home treatment. On May 5, 1975 Mrs. Borenstein was again examined by Dr. Raskin who recommended that, after the groin lesions improved, she see Dr. Spear a vascular surgeon. At trial Dr. Raskin testified that the reason he did not recommend that Mrs. Borenstein see Dr. Spear immediately was that "No surgeon is going to do any surgery on the lower aorta to remove blockage in the face of infected lesions of the groin." From May 13, 1975 until July 8, 1975, Mrs. Borenstein continued the at-home treatment. On July 8, 1975 Mrs. Borenstein saw a dermatologist and on July 10, 1975 again went to see Dr. Raskin who noted the degeneration in her condition and referred her immediately to Dr. Radlauer, a plastic surgeon. On July 11, 1975 Mrs. Borenstein was examined by Dr. Radlauer who detected large necrotic areas on both feet and on the left hip. Dr. Radlauer had Mrs. Borenstein immediately admitted to Parkway General Hospital and called Dr. Chang Wu, a vascular surgeon and cardiologist. Dr. Wu diagnosed an obstruction in the aorta leading to the lower extremities and performed the required surgery. Mrs. Borenstein subsequently underwent surgery for removal of one toe on each foot and plastic surgery.
As a defense to the malpractice action, Dr. Raskin claimed that Mrs. Borenstein's delay in seeing a vascular surgeon was comparative negligence. During the hearing on the proposed jury instructions, counsel for Mrs. Borenstein objected to the use of the jury instruction on comparative negligence on the grounds that there had been no evidence at all that Mrs. Borenstein was in any way negligent with respect to her own care, that there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sowers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Nos. 18-11901
...omitted). Establishing comparative fault is akin to proving the elements of negligence against the plaintiff. See Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So. 2d 884, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The defense of comparative fault is focused entirely on whether, and to what extent, the plaintiff's conduct was a ......
-
Rowe v. SISTERS OF PALLOTTINE MISSIONARY, 29161.
... ... Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So.2d 884, 886 (Fla.App.1981) ... See also, Riegel v. Beilan, 788 So.2d 990, 991 (Fla.App.2000) ("To establish the defense of ... ...
-
Hensley v. US
...alleged wrong caused the damage complained of. Tampa Elec. Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746, 190 So. 26, 27 (1939); Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So.2d 884, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fellows v. Citizens Fed. Sav., 383 So.2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Rosen v. Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc., 265 So.2d 93......
-
Casey v. Baseden, 61698
...negligence); Brann v. Exeter Clinic, Inc. (N.H.1985), 498 A.2d 334 (citing New Hampshire statute); Borenstein v. Raskin (Fla.App.1981), 401 So.2d 884; Palmer & Flanagan, Comparative Negligence Manual sec. 7.95, at 7-20 (rev. ed. 1985) (model jury instruction on burden of proof); 3 Comparati......
-
Duty of Care
...OF TORTS § 467 (1965). 18. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 477 (1965); KEETON ET AL., supra note 12, § 65. 19. Borenstein v. Raskin, 401 So. 2d 884, 886 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981). 20. 57A AM. JUR. 2D Negligence § 843 (1989). 21. 57AM. JUR. 2D Negligence § 860 (1989). 22. KEETON ET AL., sup......