Shapiro v. Barron, 87-1530
| Decision Date | 15 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1530,87-1530 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 448,538 So.2d 1319 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 448 Josephine SHAPIRO, as personal representative of the Estate of Lee Shapiro, and Josephine Shapiro, individually, Appellants, v. James BARRON, M.D., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Philip M. Burlington, of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Thompson and O'Brien, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Nancy P. Maxwell of Metzger, Sonneborn & Rutter, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Doctor Barron, finding that the appellants, Lee (now deceased) and Josephine Shapiro knew what caused Lee's blindness and other complications, at the latest, on December 31, 1979. Therefore, the court concluded, appellant's medical malpractice suit, filed January 29, 1982, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Mr. Shapiro underwent surgery in August of 1979. Mrs. Shapiro was in communication with her husband's nephew-in-law, Dr. Emil Gutman (a radiologist practicing in Ohio), before and after the surgery. After the surgery, Dr. Gutman travelled to Florida and viewed Mr. Shapiro's medical charts and records, even recommending to the treating doctors to call in a specialist; however, he denied giving Mrs. Shapiro any medical advice as to the cause of the blindness or other complications.
The medical records indicate Mr. Shapiro's eyesight began to deteriorate in October of 1979, and his blindness was diagnosed by December 31, 1979. After Mr. Shapiro's discharge, Dr. Gutman contacted a Dr. Kunin, who, in January of 1982, rendered the opinion that Dr. Barron's failure to use antibiotics preoperatively caused Mr. Shapiro's blindness.
While the complications arising from Mr. Shapiro's surgery were obvious to all, at what time the Shapiros had or should have had knowledge of the cause of such complications becomes the focal point of this opinion, since knowledge of physical injury alone, without the knowledge that it resulted from a negligent act, does not trigger the statute of limitations. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985).
Recognizing knowledge of the contents of medical charts and records must be imputed to the plaintiffs, Frankowitz v. Propst, 489 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); recognizing Dr. Gutman was available to the plaintiffs as an independent medical advisor throughout the hospitalization; and recognizing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Employers Ins. v. Wausau Business Ins.
...witnesses in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists in a summary judgment proceeding."); Shapiro v. Barron, 538 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1989) (reasoning that "[j]udging the credibility of witnesses or weighing the evidence are not proper subjects of a mot......
-
Brockman v. Avaya, Inc., 3:06-cv-923-J-16JRK.
...witnesses in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists in a summary judgment proceeding."); Shapiro v. Barron, 538 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1989) (reasoning that "[j]udging the credibility of witnesses or weighing the evidence are not proper subjects of a mot......
-
Variety Children's Hosp. v. Lazcano
...PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Bogorff v. Koch, 547 So.2d 1223 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); Shapiro v. Barron, 538 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Sitomer, 524 So.2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 531 So.2d 1353 (Fla.1988......
-
Vargas By and Through Vargas v. Glades General Hosp.
...alone, without knowledge that it resulted from a negligent act, does not trigger the statute of limitations. See Shapiro v. Barron, 538 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Thus, it is clear that the triggering event for the statute of limitations in this case was the Vargas' knowledge of the in......