Rooss v. Mayberry

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SHARP, W., J.
• Citation: Rooss v. Mayberry, 866 So.2d 174 (Fla. App. 2004)
• Decision Date: 20 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. 5D03-3248.,5D03-3248.
• Parties: Annette ROOSS, Petitioner, v. Kurt R. MAYBERRY, M.D., et al., Respondent.

866 So.2d 174

Annette ROOSS, Petitioner, v. Kurt R. MAYBERRY, M.D., et al., Respondent.

No. 5D03-3248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

February 20, 2004.

Susan S. Lerner of Josephs, Jack & Miranda, P.A., Miami, for Petitioner.

Gina M. Sansone and Pierre J. Seacord of Ringer, Henry, Buckley & Seacord, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent Kurt R. Mayberry, M.D.

Rafael E. Martinez and Richard L. Barry, of McEwan, Martinez & Dukes, P.A., Orlando, for Respondents Ernesto Cortes-Belen, M.D. and Florida Emergency Physicians-Kang & Associates, M.D., P.A.

Larry D. Hall and Brian L. Smith of Hill, Adams, Hall & Schieffelin, P.A., Winter Park, for Respondents Florida Hospital d/b/a Celebration Health.

SHARP, W., J.

Rooss petitions this court for certiorari review of the trial court's order which granted the respondents' (Celebration Health, emergency room physicians Kurt Mayberry and Ernesto Cortes-Belen, and Florida Emergency Physicians Kang and Associates, M.D., P.A.) motion to bifurcate a medical malpractice action as to liability and damage issues, but denied respondents' motion to stay discovery on the damage issues. We grant the writ because it appears the liability and damages issues are necessarily intertwined and any argument for the bifurcation based on inconvenience of travel to Germany to depose witnesses and translations of medical records is without merit given the court's denial of a respondent's motion to stay discovery on damages.

The record establishes that Rooss is a resident of Germany who was on a holiday in the Orlando area on November 12, 1999. Experiencing severe abdominal pain, fever, nausea and vomiting, Rooss went for treatment to the Celebration emergency room. After examining her and taking various tests, the doctors discharged her. One said she did not have an appendix problem. They prescribed pain and nausea medication and advised Rooss to follow up with her German doctor upon returning to Germany. The medications allegedly masked her continuing and worsening medical condition.

Rooss returned to Germany on November 16, 1999. She made an appointment to see her family doctor, but before the appointment time she was forced by her then severe medical condition to check herself in at a German hospital on November 21, 1999. The diagnosis was a ruptured appendix, approximately five or six days old. She experienced multiple critical medical problems, including septic shock, early stage multiple organ failure, and after surviving that, multiple surgeries, leaving her with permanent disabilities.

Respondents argue that the liability issues should be tried first, separate from the damage issues, because the damage issues require extensive discovery and trial preparation in Germany, whereas the liability issues could be narrowed primarily to testimony involving Rooss' treatment in Florida at Celebration. They do not rely on "prejudice" as a ground for bifurcation. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(b) allows for the bifurcation for trial of cases "in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice." And in general, a trial court has broad discretion to bifurcate cases in the interest of effective judicial administration. See Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So.2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975),cert. denied, 336 So.2d 599 (Fla.1976).

In this case, the ground the trial judge relied...