Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 12, 2002; Florida; State Appellate Court
Deborah Howard appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Dr. Lawrence Savitsky, Dr. William Minnix, Dr. Michael Slomka, and Tampa Bay Orthopaedic Specialists, after the trial court ruled that her medical malpractice case was governed by the precedent set in Mosley v. American Medical International, Inc., due to her prior settlement of a premises liability lawsuit against two homeowners. The appellate court reverses the summary judgment, finding that a material issue of fact exists, and emphasizes that summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issues of material fact are present, with the trial court required to view facts favorably for the nonmoving party.
On June 16, 1996, Mrs. Howard suffered an injury at a private residence when she walked into a plate glass door. Immediate treatment by Dr. Minnix and Dr. Savitsky was followed by multiple surgeries that failed to restore function or alleviate pain. After moving to Kentucky, her new orthopaedic doctor indicated potential negligence by the Florida doctors. She filed a premises liability lawsuit on September 8, 1997, and subsequently, a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Savitsky and Dr. Minnix on December 14, 1998, with a separate action against Dr. Slomka and Tampa Bay Orthopaedic Specialists on February 26, 1999. These cases were consolidated.
Mrs. Howard settled her case against the homeowners on March 26, 1999, for $27,500, executing a release that discharged the homeowners and their associates from liability for all claims arising from the June 16, 1996, accident. However, the release reserved her right to pursue future medical expenses from other responsible parties, excluding those released.
The undersigned declare that the settlement terms have been fully read, understood, and voluntarily accepted to finalize all claims, including injuries or damages from a specific accident, effectively barring any future claims against the released parties. The doctors involved sought summary judgment, asserting that the release legally covered all claims from Mrs. Howard’s accident, including alleged medical malpractice, arguing she was aware of her injuries when she signed the release in 1999. Mrs. Howard contended that the release was ambiguous due to stricken language, affecting its scope and legal validity. The trial court ruled in favor of the doctors, but the appellate court found that the ambiguity related to future damages warranted further examination of the release and potential parole evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
