Spinner by and Through Spinner v. Wainer
Docket: 81-2416, 82-454
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 4, 1983; Florida; State Appellate Court
A fourteen-year-old minor, represented by her father, appealed two summary final judgments—one favoring an emergency room doctor and hospital, and another favoring a radiologist. The court reversed the judgment against the emergency room doctor and hospital and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the judgment for the radiologist. The court found the motion for summary judgment by the emergency room doctor and hospital to be deficient and improperly considered by the trial judge, leading to potential prejudice against the minor. The appellants argued that they believed the trial court would not entertain such a flawed motion, which prevented them from providing expert testimony necessary to support their case. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and acknowledged that the absence of expert testimony had likely contributed to the summary judgment in favor of the appellees. In contrast, the motion for summary judgment by the radiologist was compliant with procedural rules, and the appellants failed to present any expert testimony to challenge the evidence provided by the appellees. The court noted that the minor's case against the emergency room doctor and hospital could be refiled with a properly constructed motion. A summary judgment can be granted on liability even if there is a dispute regarding damages. The 1976 amendment to the rules requires a movant to specify the grounds and legal authority for seeking summary judgment, aligning it with the requirements for motions to dismiss under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b). This aims to eliminate surprises and ensure that motions are particular and specific. The motion in question inadequately cited that "the pleadings, depositions and supporting affidavit show that there are no genuine issues of material fact," without attaching the referenced report. The counsel argued the motion's inadequacy before the trial court and sought a continuance, which was denied, but failed to address this denial in their brief. A deposition from the ear, nose, and throat specialist, who later treated the child, confirmed that the actions of the doctors and hospital did not impact the child's condition. The specialist noted that even with earlier intervention, the outcome would have remained the same, attributing any residual issues solely to the original injury.