Buck v. Mouradian, No. 57-257
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | HORTON; CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON |
| Citation | 100 So.2d 70 |
| Decision Date | 21 January 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-257 |
| Parties | Sally Sabena BUCK, joined by her husband, Cameron Buck, Appellants, v. A. H. MOURADIAN, Appellee. |
Page 70
v.
A. H. MOURADIAN, Appellee.
George L. Knight and Vincent J. Zepp, Miami, for appellants.
Carey & Papy, Miami, for appellee.
HORTON, Judge.
The appellant, plaintiff in the court below, seeks the reversal of a final judgment entered consequent upon the granting of the
Page 71
appellee-defendant's motion for summary judgment. The suit was instituted in the lower court by the appellant on December 26, 1956, charging the appellee, a physician, with malpractice in administering a series of x-ray treatments, causing injuries to the appellant. Specifically, it was charged that during the year 1951, the appellant engaged the appellee to treat her and pursuant to this agreement, she submitted herself for examination and treatment by the appellee, who thereafter carelessly and negligently administered a series of x-ray treatments which resulted in the appellant's receiving latent burns and injuries to the internal organs of her abdomen and other parts of her body. That subsequent to these x-ray treatments, the appellee continued to treat the appellant but fraudulently failed to advise her that the symptoms from which she was suffering were occasioned by x-ray burns resulting from appellee's carelessness and negligence.To the complaint, the appellee filed answer which, among other defenses, raised the affirmative defense that the appellant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, specifically alleging in said defense that the appellant had not been treated or examined by the appellee since November 30, 1951. Interrogatories were propounded by each party to the other, and request for admissions was made upon the appellant by the appellee, all of which showed that as a result of a series of x-ray treatments in 1951, the appellant experienced some skin burns in and about her abdomen and that shortly thereafter there appeared a blushing or erythema reaction. The appellant admits that she experienced a skin condition in the general area in which she received the x-ray treatments and that she discussed this condition with the appellee, who advised her that it was the result of the x-ray treatments and that he did not know why her skin had burned. In 1955, appellant learned through diagnosis of other doctors the extent of her injuries occasioned by the x-ray burns in 1951. By...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandi v. Strully, No. A--100
...v. Tucker, 67 Ohio St. 106, 65 N.E. 865 (Sup.Ct.1902); cf. City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1954); Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla.App.Ct.1958); Sly v. Van Lengen, 120 Misc. 420, 198 N.Y.S. 608 (Sup.Ct.1923); Note, supra, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177, at p. 1203; Note, supra, 1......
-
Bogorff By and Through Bogorff v. Koch, Nos. 86-2550
...until plaintiff is able to discover the negligence. Nardone; Almengor v. Dade County, 359 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 104 So.2d 592 Questions of fact pertaining to the statute of limitations exist in the record before us: When d......
-
Schnebly v. Baker, No. 55408
...297 P.2d 728; Hemingway v. Waxler, 128 Cal.App.2d 68, 274 P.2d 699; Bathke v. Rahn, 46 Cal.App.2d 694, 116 P.2d 640; Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla.app.); Mills v. Warner, 201 Ill.App. 258; Tabolsky v. Crandon, 259 Mass. 32, 155 N.E. 657; Kroll v Vanden Berg, 336 Mich. 306, 57 N.W.2d ......
-
Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, No. 4511
...only from that time." See 34 Am.Jur., Limitation of Actions, § 115; 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 168. 9 Cf., Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla.App.); Ogg v. Robb, 181 Iowa 145, 162 N.W. 217, L.R.A.1918C, 981. Insofar as these cases disregard the allegedly false and fraudulent ......
-
Fernandi v. Strully, No. A--100
...v. Tucker, 67 Ohio St. 106, 65 N.E. 865 (Sup.Ct.1902); cf. City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1954); Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla.App.Ct.1958); Sly v. Van Lengen, 120 Misc. 420, 198 N.Y.S. 608 (Sup.Ct.1923); Note, supra, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177, at p. 1203; Note, supra, 1......
-
Bogorff By and Through Bogorff v. Koch, Nos. 86-2550
...until plaintiff is able to discover the negligence. Nardone; Almengor v. Dade County, 359 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 104 So.2d 592 Questions of fact pertaining to the statute of limitations exist in the record before us: When d......
-
Schnebly v. Baker, No. 55408
...297 P.2d 728; Hemingway v. Waxler, 128 Cal.App.2d 68, 274 P.2d 699; Bathke v. Rahn, 46 Cal.App.2d 694, 116 P.2d 640; Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla.app.); Mills v. Warner, 201 Ill.App. 258; Tabolsky v. Crandon, 259 Mass. 32, 155 N.E. 657; Kroll v Vanden Berg, 336 Mich. 306, 57 N.W.2d ......
-
Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, No. 4511
...only from that time." See 34 Am.Jur., Limitation of Actions, § 115; 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 168. 9 Cf., Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla.App.); Ogg v. Robb, 181 Iowa 145, 162 N.W. 217, L.R.A.1918C, 981. Insofar as these cases disregard the allegedly false and fraudulent ......