Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns a medical malpractice claim filed by Sandra Dale Essex against Dr. Michael A. Karr following a hip replacement surgery in which Essex claimed Dr. Karr negligently fractured her femur. Essex submitted presuit affidavits from medical professionals not specializing in orthopaedics, leading Dr. Karr to move for dismissal on the grounds that these affidavits failed to meet Florida's Medical Malpractice Act requirements. The trial court agreed, dismissing the complaint with prejudice due to the lack of a verified medical opinion from an orthopaedic specialist. On appeal, the court conducted a de novo review and affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the affidavits did not comply with statutory presuit requirements. The appellant's constitutional challenge to the 'same specialty' requirement was deemed unpreserved, as notice was not provided to the Attorney General. Additionally, the appellant's reference to prior case law was found irrelevant, and the request for dismissal without prejudice was rejected. The court upheld the validity of section 766.102(5)(a) of the Florida Statutes, affirming the judgment in favor of Dr. Karr, and substituting the personal representative of Essex's estate as the party following her death.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate review of compliance with presuit investigation requirements is conducted de novo, focusing on the legal sufficiency of the presuit affidavits.
Reasoning: The appellate review is de novo, focusing on the legal question of compliance with presuit investigation requirements.
Constitutional Challenge and Rule 1.071 Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that constitutional challenges must comply with service requirements under rule 1.071, which was not met in this case, rendering the challenge unpreserved.
Reasoning: The appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of the 'same specialty' requirement was not preserved for appellate review, as per Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.071.
Finality of Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the final judgment in favor of the defendant, rejecting the appellant's request for a dismissal without prejudice as unpreserved and unwarranted.
Reasoning: The final judgment in favor of Dr. Karr was affirmed.
Presuit Affidavit Requirements under Florida's Medical Malpractice Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that affidavits from health care providers not specializing in the same field as the defendant do not satisfy the presuit affidavit requirements.
Reasoning: The ruling concludes that it does not, leading to the affirmation of the final judgment.
Specialty Requirement for Expert Affidavitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that a presuit affidavit must be provided by a specialist in the same field as the defendant to support a medical negligence claim.
Reasoning: Essex was required to provide a presuit verified medical opinion from an expert who specializes in orthopaedic surgery, since Dr. Karr is an orthopaedic surgeon.