Wroy v. North Miami Medical Center, Ltd., 3D05-1341.
| Decision Date | 21 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-1341.,3D05-1341. |
| Citation | 937 So.2d 1116 |
| Parties | Marie WROY, Appellant, v. NORTH MIAMI MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., d/b/a Parkway Regional Medical Center, a Florida limited partnership, Robert J. Poppiti, Jr., M.D. and Mt. Sinai Medical Center of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Virginia S. Forbes; Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami, for appellant.
Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, and Shelley H. Leinicke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees, Robert J. Poppiti, Jr., M.D. and Mt. Sinai Medical Center of Florida, Inc.
Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez Cortina, and Gail Leverett Parenti, Coral Gables, for appellee, North Miami Medical Center, Ltd. d/b/a Parkway Regional Medical Center.
Before COPE, C.J., and GERSTEN, and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Marie Wroy ("Wroy") appeals an adverse summary judgment entered in favor of North Miami Medical Center, d/b/a/ Parkway Regional Medical Center ("Parkway"), Dr. Robert J. Poppiti, Jr. ("Poppiti"), and Mt. Sinai Medical Center of Florida ("Mt. Sinai") (collectively "the defendants"). We affirm.
Parkway performed a routine mammogram on Wroy. The reporting radiologist recommended that Wroy obtain further imaging studies. However, Parkway neither provided the report to Wroy nor notified her of these findings.
Seventeen months later, Mt. Sinai conducted a routine mammogram on Wroy and discovered a nodular density in Wroy's left breast. Based on these results, Wroy underwent additional studies, and Poppiti diagnosed Wroy with invasive medullary breast cancer. Wroy underwent surgery and received radiation treatment. All of the cancer was removed, and Wroy has been cancer-free for the past three years.
Wroy received a second opinion and now claims that Poppiti misdiagnosed the type of cancer. Wroy alleges that she actually had a more aggressive cancer that required chemotherapy treatment.
Wroy sought damages against Parkway for failure to provide her with notice of an abnormal mammogram, which resulted in a seventeen-month delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Wroy also sought damages against Poppiti and Mt. Sinai for the misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment of her cancer.
Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding there was no causal relationship between the alleged negligence and the damages Wroy claimed.
Wroy appeals contending the trial court erred in granting summary judgment claiming the existence of material facts foreclose summary judgment. After reviewing the record, however, we conclude the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
To prevail in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty of care; and (3) that the breach of care proximately caused the injuries the plaintiff claims and that damages are owed. Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So.2d 1015 (Fla.1984); Miller v. Foster, 686 So.2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The concern in this case is the proximate cause issue.
In Gooding, the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that Florida courts follow the "more likely than not" standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff's injuries. Gooding, 445 So.2d at 1018. In other words, the plaintiff must show that there is a 51% or more likelihood that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries. Gooding, 445 So.2d at 1020. Applying this standard to the instant case, we agree with the trial court that there is no causal relationship between the alleged negligence and any damages to Wroy.
The defendants presented evidence that there was no increase in the size of Wroy's tumor from the time of her first mammogram, to Poppiti's later diagnosis of breast cancer. They also presented evidence that the physicians would have proceeded with the same treatment if they had discovered the cancer at the earlier mammogram. Further, the physicians agreed that Wroy has a 90-95% chance of survival, and even if she did have the more aggressive cancer Wroy still has an 88% chance of survival.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Wroy presented pre-suit doctor affidavits claiming that the defendants' conduct caused a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gonzalez
...875 So.2d 767, 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Proto v. Graham, 788 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also Wroy v. N. Miami Med. Ctr., Ltd., 937 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The judgment under review is therefore reversed for entry of judgment in the hospital's favor.44. In the intere......
-
Chaskes v. Gutierrez
...is the third element, namely whether the breach of that duty proximately caused the damages claimed.”); Wroy v. N. Miami Med. Ctr., Ltd., 937 So.2d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“We understand that Wroy would rather have been diagnosed at the earlier mammogram, and that she is concerned ab......
-
Martin v. Sowers
...breast cancer is not—and could not be—the injury for which Martin and her family sued Appellee. Wroy v. North Miami Medical Center, Ltd., 937 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (failure to diagnose breast cancer not cognizable medical malpractice claim where appellant failed to submit any eviden......
-
D.E.W v. KROUSE
...the doctor breached the duty of care; and (3) the breach proximately caused injuries and damages are owed. Wroy v. N. Miami Med. Ctr., Ltd., 937 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So.2d 1015 (Fla.1984)). Generally, the impact rule requires th......