Furnari v. Lurie
| Decision Date | 08 January 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--475,69--475 |
| Citation | 242 So.2d 742 |
| Parties | Geraldine S. FURNARI and Richard V. Furnari, her husband, Appellants, v. Jack LURIE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hale Baugh, of Driscoll & Baugh, Cocoa, for appellants.
Paul Bernardin, of Sands, Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson & Rosier, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
This is a dental malpractice action in which the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. We conclude that this was error and reverse.
Mrs. Furnari developed a severe toothache for which she consulted the defendant on an emergency basis. The defendant correctly diagnosed Mrs. Furnari's difficulty as an infected second molar, and recommended its extraction as the proper method of treatment. No complaint is made here as to either the diagnosis or the method of treatment undertaken. The negligence charged to the defendant was in the manner in which he administered such approved method of treatment. The issue here is simply whether the jury could be permitted to reach a conclusion as to whether the defendant was negligent in the administration of that treatment in the absence of any expert testimony to that effect.
The law in this jurisdiction is clear that in a malpractice case where the negligence charged is in the application or administration of an approved medical treatment, jurors of ordinary intelligence, sense and judgment are capable, in many cases, of reaching a conclusion without the aid of expert testimony. Atkins v. Humes, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 663; Levy v. Kirk, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 401; Cook v. Lichtblau, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 523; Brown v. Swindal, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 38. The difficulty arises in determining whether the facts in a specific case are such as to bring that case within the principle.
Dr. Lurie saw Mrs. Furnari as an emergency patient at 5:30 in the afternoon. The extraction of the infected molar proved to be quite difficult, and in fact, the tooth was broken during the operation as a result of which the infected palatal root was left in the patient's jaw. Neither patient nor dentist was aware of that fact at the time. The presence of the infected root tip in the jaw was discovered several days later when Mrs. Furnari consulted another dentist. The defendant testified that it was not unusual for teeth to break during extraction, and there is certainly no evidence that breaking the tooth was negligence. However, the defendant also testified (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blodgett v. Dunham, No. 4-00-CV-10058 (S.D. Iowa 8/24/2001)
...negligence necessitated subsequent operation to remove root tip and was proximate cause of resulting damages); Furnari v. Lurie, 242 So.2d 742, 743-44 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1971) (holding evidence would permit jury to conclude defendant was negligent in failing to discover and remove infected r......
-
Sasser v. Humana of Florida, Inc.
...50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Appellants were required to produce expert testimony in order to establish negligence. Compare Furnari v. Lurie, 242 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Sims v. Helms, 345 So.2d 721 (Fla. 1977); Thomas v. Berrios, 348 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); South Miami Hospital v.......
-
Pierce v. Smith
...permitted to determine liability without the necessity of expert testimony. Atkins v. Humes, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 663; Furnari v. Lurie, Fla.App.4th, 1971, 242 So.2d 742. Thus, in Atkins the Supreme Court '. . . jurors of ordinary intelligence, sense and judgment are, in many cases, capable ......