Estate of Githens v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor
| Decision Date | 26 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D05-2023.,2D05-2023. |
| Citation | 928 So.2d 1272 |
| Parties | The ESTATE OF Naomi GITHENS, by and through the Personal Representative, Bettye SEAMAN, Appellant, v. BON SECOURS — MARIA MANOR NURSING CARE CENTER, INC., d/b/a Bon Secours — Maria Manor, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jay P. Dinan and D. Keith Thomas of Santa Lucia & Thomas, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellant.
John A. Brekka Jr. and Christy Brigman of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Sheila Nicholson of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.
The Estate of Naomi Githens, by and through the personal representative, Bettye Seaman(the Estate), appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of Bon Secours — Maria Manor Nursing Care Center, Inc., d/b/a Bon Secours — Maria Manor, a Florida Corporation(the Nursing Home).The Estate brought this action pursuant to the nursing home residents' rights statute, section 400.022, Florida Statutes(2002).The Estate claimed, among other things, that the Nursing Home was negligent with respect to a fractured tibia that Ms. Githens suffered while she was a resident of the Nursing Home and that this negligence caused or significantly contributed to her death.Because the Nursing Home failed to carry its burden in order to obtain a summary judgment, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Ms. Githens was admitted to the Nursing Home on November 20, 2000.She was wheelchair bound and suffered from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and osteoporosis.On August 23, 2002, Nursing Home staff noticed that Ms. Githens' right leg was showing signs of abnormality.On August 26, 2002, X-rays revealed that Ms. Githens had suffered "a non-displaced spiral fracture to the distal tibia in her right leg."She was hospitalized and subsequently died on September 30, 2002.Her death certificate reflects that at the time of her death, Ms. Githens was ninety-two years old.The certificate lists her immediate cause of death as cardio-respiratory arrest, although the record contains expert deposition testimony that the leg fracture contributed significantly to her death.
The Nursing Home sought summary judgment, arguing that the Estate's claim improperly relied on the stacking of inferences.The Nursing Home contended that "the basic inference in this case, which is that the fracture that Ms. Githens suffered from occurred from the handling of another person can not, nor can it ever be established to the exclusion of any other reasonable theory."The Nursing Home cited to the deposition of Gloria Cruz, one of Ms. Githens' caregivers, to support its assertion that Ms. Githens had the ability to move herself while in bed.The Nursing Home also asserted that Ms. Githens had Parkinson's disease, which results in involuntary movements, and that her bones were weakened due to severe osteoporosis.Thus, the Nursing Home argued that Ms. Githens had limited mobility and could have moved in such a way as to have caused the fracture.The Nursing Home suggested as examples that Ms. Githens could have gotten her foot caught in between the bed and the bedrail or she could have tangled her foot in the sheets, and that either circumstance, considering her severe osteoporosis, could have caused the fracture.It also suggested that perhaps someone other than a person affiliated with the Nursing Home, such as a visiting family member, may have moved Ms. Githens' leg to the point of causing the fracture.
The Estate responded by pointing to evidence reflecting that Ms. Githens was totally dependent on the Nursing Home staff for ambulating, turning, and repositioning.It argued that there was no evidence supporting the Nursing Home's theory that perhaps Ms. Githens injured herself or that someone other than a Nursing Home staff member may have caused her injury.The Estate contended that there was no reasonable explanation as to how the injury occurred other than through the negligence of the Nursing Home and that if there were a factual dispute as to whether Ms. Githens could have injured herself, the dispute would be for the jury to resolve.Thus, it appears that the Estate's basic inference is that the Nursing Home staff's handling of Ms. Githens caused her fracture.
The trial court granted summary judgment, stating that the Estate's claim relies on several inferences to establish negligence; that there are multiple reasonable theories, not all of which implicate the Nursing Home, to explain how Ms. Githens received the injury; and that the Estate's case "impermissibly relies on the stacking or pyramiding of inferences."
Our review of a summary judgment is de novo.Maynard v. Household Fin. Corp. III,861 So.2d 1204, 1206(Fla. 2d DCA2003).A movant is...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 7-day Trial
-
Boye v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
...materials as would be admissible in evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' "
Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., 928 So. 2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to prove the absence of a genuine issue of materialfact. "Where a defendant pleads affirmative defenses,insufficiency." Bryson v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 75 So. 3d 783, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). This court must view "every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment has been entered." Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman, 928 So. 2d at 1274(quoting Maynard v. Household Fin. Corp. III, 861 So. 2d 1204, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). If the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, that doubt must be resolved against the moving... -
Green v. Apac-Florida, Inc.
...must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Bruno v. Destiny Transp., Inc., 921 So.2d 836, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985)); In re Githens,
928 So.2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Our review is de novo. We view every possible inference in favor of the Greens. Githens, 928 So.2d at 1274. The record compels us to conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether... -
Gibson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
...as would be admissible in evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 928 So.2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ). The parties agree that there are no material facts in dispute. Thus, we review the trial court's entry of summary judgment as a pure question of law.... -
Lin v. Demings
...there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours–Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr. , 928 So.2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ); accord Koresko v. Coe , 683 So.2d 602, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp. , 373 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) ). In analyzing a motion for summary judgment,on the movant to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact. See Holl v. Talcott , 191 So.2d 40, 43–44 (Fla. 1966) ; Taylor v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC , 74 So.3d 1115, 1116–17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Estate of Githens , 928 So.2d at 1274). "[I]f the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, that doubt must be resolved against the moving party and summary judgment must be denied." Taylor , 74 So.3d at 1117...