MacMurray v. Board of Regents, II-150

Decision Date07 September 1978
Docket NumberNo. II-150,II-150
Citation362 So.2d 969
PartiesDiane S. MacMURRAY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Russell Troutman of Troutman, Parrish & Weeks, Winter Park, for appellant.

Joe C. Willcox of Dell, Graham, Willcox, Barber, Ryals & Henderson, Gainesville, for appellee.

MELVIN, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered in her claim against appellee-defendant, Board of Regents. The appellant will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the appellee will hereafter be referred to as the Shands Teaching Hospital.

Diane S. MacMurray's complaint filed May 25, 1976, alleged in substance that she was a patient in the hospital for the purpose of having x-rays and tomograms taken July 31, 1973. It was alleged that the Shands Teaching Hospital interpreted such x-rays on July 31, 1973, and tomograms on August 7, 1973, as being normal when, in fact, the same indicated the presence of an abnormal condition in the plaintiff's body. It was further alleged that as a legal cause and direct result of the negligence of the hospital in misinterpreting the positive indications on the x-rays and tomographs of the existence of Hodgkin's Disease, a proper diagnosis of such disease was delay for four months and treatment for such disease was delayed for six months. It was alleged that the plaintiff experienced physical and mental pain and suffering and sustained travel and medical expenses which otherwise would not have been sustained, and that she further suffered a reduction in her ultimate chances of recovery by reason of the delay in diagnosis and treatment. After the pleadings were settled, the Shands Teaching Hospital admitted misreading Mrs. MacMurray's x-rays and tomographs, and that such action on its part constituted actionable negligence.

The only question before the trial court and the question here considered is whether or not the complaint of Diane S. MacMurray was barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, Section 95.11(4)(b). If her action was not brought within two years after she discovered or through the use of reasonable care should have discovered the incident (negligent interpretation of x-rays) which is the subject matter of the litigation, she cannot prevail.

The final judgment contains the following:

"2. From the undisputed facts disclosed by this record, there is no genuine issue as to any of the following facts:

a. The injury complained of was the failure of physicians at Shands Teaching Hospital to diagnose Plaintiff's Hodgkins Disease which was clearly evidence from certain chest x-rays and tomograms incorrectly interpreted as normal in August 1973.

b. Following her discharge from Shands in August 1973, Plaintiff was hospitalized at Orange Memorial Hospital in Orlando, Florida, where chest x-rays then made led to a prompt diagnosis of Hodgkins Disease which was known to Plaintiff in December 1973.

c. For the purpose of having the Shands x-rays and tomograms available for comparison with the Orange Memorial x-rays with respect to a lesion in the left chest, not directly related to the discovery and diagnosis of Hodgkins Disease, Plaint...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Walls v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • July 19, 1993
    ...subglottic stenosis (the narrowing of the airway below the vocal cords) after treatment that included intubations and a tracheotomy. The MacMurray plaintiff knew that she had Hodgkin's disease and, through her husband, a physician, had control of her medical records more than two years befo......
  • Glass v. Camara, KK-343
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 1979
    ...show both successful concealment of the cause of action and fraudulent means to achieve that concealment."); MacMurray v. Board of Regents, 362 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur. 1 Section 95.11(4)(a) and (b) now provides a two-year limitation period ......
  • Moore, By and Through Moore v. Morris
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 4, 1983
    ...limitations. Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976); 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. Mo......
  • Arteaga v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 1988
    ...992, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), quashed on other grounds sub nom. Wagshul v. Lipshaw, 464 So.2d 551 (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 ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT