Shapiro v. Barron, 87-1530

Citation14 Fla. L. Weekly 448,538 So.2d 1319
Decision Date15 February 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-1530,87-1530
Parties14 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.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

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.

PER CURIAM.

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
9 cases
  • Pacific Employers Ins. v. Wausau Business Ins., 3:05-cv-850-J-16TEM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 14 d4 Junho d4 2007
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • 28 d4 Fevereiro d4 2008
    ...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, 87-3065
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 10 d2 Outubro d2 1989
    ...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., s. 87-2393
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 25 d3 Julho d3 1990
    ...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......
  • 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