Guzman v. Faraldo, 78-1589
| Decision Date | 03 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1589,78-1589 |
| Citation | 373 So.2d 66 |
| Parties | Ofelia GUZMAN and Thomas Guzman, her husband, Appellants, v. Anthony R. FARALDO, M. D., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert F. Weiner, Miami, for appellants.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and Henry Burnett, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ., and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The plaintiffs, Ofelia Guzman and her husband, Thomas Guzman, appeal from a final judgment on a directed verdict for defendants Anthony R. Faraldo, M.D., and Metropolitan Dade, d/b/a Jackson Memorial Hospital. The action was for alleged medical malpractice. Defendant Faraldo was the surgeon who performed an operation on Mrs. Guzman involving open-heart surgery; defendant Jackson Memorial Hospital furnished the operating room and the anesthesiologists. The directed verdict was entered at the close of the plaintiffs' case.
The controlling question, as developed by the briefs and the argument before this court, is whether the evidence presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and with all reasonable inferences therefrom, is sufficient to show a prima facie case. See John B. Reid & Associates, Inc. v. Jimenez, 181 So.2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). The single element that the defendants urge was not shown is that the injury was proximately caused by any act or omission on their part, which was shown to be a departure from the standard of reasonable care.
The evidence presented showed that Mrs. Guzman suffered an injury to her eleventh cranial nerve. This nerve starts at the base of the skull and runs under a neck muscle and extends into the shoulder area supplying the trapezius and sternocleidomastoid muscles. The disability complained of after the operation was that Mrs. Guzman did not have full control of her neck muscles. As a result, her head was pulled to one side. She could not voluntarily correct this condition.
There is no evidence that the nerve was damaged by the surgery as distinguished from the operational procedure. The plaintiffs seek to infer that the condition, which was first noted two or three days after surgery, occurred during, and resulted from, the operational procedure. The particular cause urged by the plaintiffs is that the nerve was damaged by the prolonged position of plaintiff's head during the operation. There was testimony that when a patient is unconscious and paralyzed, while under general anesthesia, the patient's muscles are most susceptible to injury. This fact requires that particular attention be paid to the positioning of the patient's body to insure that it is free from pressure placed on vulnerable areas in order to prevent nerve damage. During the lengthy surgical procedure, the patient is required to have a tube inserted in her throat. The plaintiffs called defendant Faraldo, who testified that one of the things an anesthesiologist is supposed to watch for is prolonged pressure on a nerve during the operation. The doctor further testified that if the anesthesiologist was not aware of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chenoweth v. Kemp
...is the probable actor." Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So.2d 1339, 1342 (Fla.1978). See Guzman v. Faraldo, 373 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1980); Anderson v. Gordon, 334 So.2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA The judgment is affirmed. It is so orde......
-
Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 90-2335
...the plaintiff." Jones v. City of Hialeah, 368 So.2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979); see also Guzman v. Faraldo, 373 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied 383 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1980). We find sufficient evidence for the jury to return a verdict finding him totall......
- Guzman v. Faraldo