Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesCASE FACTS: Peggy Schatz obtained sclerotherapy from Dr. Robert Aries at Ideal Image, Inc., in order to remove spider veins in her legs. Complications arose, and she presented to St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa for diagnosis and treatment. Within about two weeks of presenting to the emergency room and being admitted to the hospital, Peggy Schatz's right leg was amputated. The Schatzes filed suit against numerous parties, including, among others, Dr. Aries, Ideal Image as well as the physicians who treated her at St. Joseph's Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital. Several years later, and shortly before a scheduled trial, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment asserting that the Schatzes' release of the claims against Dr. Aries and Ideal Image also released them. The defendants argued that Dr. Aries and Ideal Image were the initial tortfeasors and that they were subsequent tortfeasors and that the release did not expressly reserve to the Schatzes a right to proceed against them. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Schatzes appealed.
COURT'S OPINION: The District Court of Appeals of Florida reversed the order of the trial court granting summary judgment for the defendants. The court held, inter alia, that the trial court erred and that summary judgment for the defendants was entered improperly. The trial court's ruling implicitly suggested that there was no dispute concerning whether the defendants were subsequent tortfeasors, rather than joint tortfeasors. It appears, however, that the defendants' tortfeasor status was disputed. The courts noted that its opinion should not be read as a determination that Dr. Aries and Ideal Image were initial tortfeasors and that the defendants were subsequent tortfeasors. The defendants argument was based on principles that generally arise when a person injured by the negligence of another seeks medical treatment, which in turn aggravates the injury. In such circumstances, the law regards the negligence of the initial wrongdoer as the proximate cause of the subsequent negligent treatment. The aggrieved party may recover the entirety of their damages from the initial tortfeasor and the initial trortfeasor may then maintain an independent action for subrogation against the subsequent tortfeasor. When the injured party and the initial tortfeasor enter into a settlement against the subsequent tortfeasor. "When the injured party and the initial tortfeasor enter into a settlement against the subsequent tortfeasor. "When the injured party and the initial tortfeasor enter into a settlement and the injured party does not clearly reserve his cause of action against the successor tortfeasor, the legal presumption is that the injured party recovered the entirety of his damages by way of the settlement." Sehatz v. Haslip, 2009-FL-0317.054 (3/13/2009)--FL
Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD. is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island firm of A. David Tammello & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who's in the World.
FEED