Hill v. Virgin, 77-1009
| Decision Date | 20 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1009,77-1009 |
| Parties | Geoffrey H. HILL, Appellant, v. Dr. Herbert W. VIRGIN, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward C. Vining, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard and Steven R. Berger, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ., and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff in this medical malpractice action, seeks review of the following adverse summary final judgment in which the trial court found:
"1. That the Plaintiff, GEOFFREY H. HILL was a patient of the Defendant, DR. HERBERT W. VIRGIN, JR. commencing on or about March 8, 1967, in connection with an injury involving, among other conditions, a fracture of the right femur.
2. That the defendant . . . attended the patient during the period of 1967 through 1970 and that the Plaintiff, during that period of time, was advised of a non-union situation and the development of infection within the injured area.
3. That the patient . . . ceased treatment with the Defendant in late 1970 and was thereafter attended by other physicians.
4. That in December of 1972 the Plaintiff was advised by a physician to wit: Dr. Thompson, that the medical management of the infectious condition as rendered by this Defendant was not in keeping with the appropriate standard of care.
5. That the leg in question to wit: the right leg, was amputated in January of 1973 and this lawsuit was not instituted until February 27, 1975.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. That the Motion for Summary Judgment of the Defendant . . . be and the same is hereby granted in that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the very latest, in January of 1975 being two (2) years after the amputation of the leg.
2. That the Statute of Limitations may have expired prior to January of 1975 predicated upon the actual knowledge of the Plaintiff of the condition of the nonunion and infection but such finding is unnecessary in view of conclusion % 7b 1 above.
WHEREFORE, it is ordered and adjudged that Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby entered in favor of the Defendant, DR. HERBERT W. VIRGIN, JR. and the Plaintiff, GEOFFREY H. HILL shall take nothing by this action and the Defendant shall go hence without day . . . "
By this appeal, we are called upon to determine whether the trial court was correct in entering summary final judgment for the defendant holding, in effect, that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the statute of limitations had run. We hold that the trial court was correct, and w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore, By and Through Moore v. Morris
...Robinson v. Sparer, 365 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); MacMurray v. Board of Regents, 362 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Hill v. Virgin, 359 So.2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); McCloud v. Hall, 180 So.2d 509 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1965); Buck v. Mouradian, 100 So.2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA The final summary judgme......
-
Johnson v. Szymanski
...particular problem, we are not persuaded by these arguments.3 Two Florida cases appear to be factually on point. In both Hill v. Virgin, 359 So.2d 918 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) and Salvaggio v. Austin, 336 So.2d 1282 (Fla.2d DCA 1976) the defendant's malpractice occurred before the effective date o......
-
Arteaga v. Jacobs
...(Fla.1985); MacMurray v. Board of Regents, 362 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 460 (Fla.1979); Hill v. Virgin, 359 So.2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). ...