Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Villar v. Pereiras
Citations: 588 So. 2d 678; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11292; 1991 WL 232229Docket: No. 91-110
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 11, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court
Fausto Villar appeals a final judgment favoring Dr. Raul V. Pereiras, Jr. in a medical negligence case related to an aortic aneurysm diagnosis. After Dr. Pereiras performed an arteriogram, Villar experienced complications due to bleeding from the catheter insertion point. The trial focused on whether Dr. Pereiras adhered to medical standards regarding pressure application after the procedure. During the trial, the defense requested a jury instruction stating that the presence of a medical injury does not imply negligence and that Villar must prove that the injury was caused by a breach of the standard of care. Villar objected, arguing that the instruction was confusing and unnecessary, but the court allowed it. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of Dr. Pereiras. On appeal, Villar contended that the trial court erred by giving this instruction. The appellate court agreed, noting that the instruction was both argumentative and confusing. It referred to the Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions, which advises against similar instructions as they may mislead juries. The court emphasized that terms like "proximate cause" and "burden of proof" were not adequately defined, further complicating jury understanding. The court referenced Florida Statutes Section 766.102(4), which addresses the presumption of negligence in medical injury cases. However, it clarified that Villar's case did not rely on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, and the instruction was inappropriate for the context. The reliance on a prior case, Craft v. Kramer, was deemed misplaced since Villar's attorney did not mislead the jury. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the jury instruction's shortcomings were pivotal to the decision.