throbber
Filing # 132095520 E-Filed 08/05/2021 11:26:12 AM
`
`SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT
`BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO.
`
`JUDGE
`
`PAUL CEPARANO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`JIN Y. PAREDES, D.O.,
`JYP HEALTHCARE, P.A.,
`ALVARO PADILLA, M.D.,
`ALEXANDER POISIK, M.D.,
`ARNOLD LANG, M.D.,
`BROWARD NEUROSURGEONS, LLC, and
`COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF SOUTH BROWARD,
`
`Defendants.
`
`i
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff sues Defendants and alleges at all material times:
`
`This action seeks damages exceeding $30,000.
`
`Plaintiff satisfied all conditions precedent, substantially satisfied them, or they are
`
`waived, including but not limited to complying with all parts of Chapter766 of the
`
`Florida Statutes.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Broward County is a proper venue for this case because Plaintiff' s claims against
`
`Defendants arose in BrowardCounty.
`
`4.
`
`The signatures of Plaintiff s counsel at the end of this document certify, per section
`
`766.104(1) of the Florida Statutes, that they made a reasonableinvestigation before filing
`
`this case and that investigation gave rise to a good faith belief that grounds exist for the
`
`claims against Defendants.
`
`*** FILED: BROWARDCOUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 08/05/2021 11:26:08 AM.****
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Defendant, Jin Y. Paredes, DO (ER Dr.) was a Florida doctor who, although not board
`
`certified in emergency medicine, was acting and holding herself out as, among other
`
`things, an emergency medicine doctor, and conductedher customary business in Broward
`
`County.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant, JYP Healthcare, PA (JYPPA) was a Florida business entity and conducted its
`
`customary business in Broward County.
`
`Defendant, Alvaro Padilla, MD (Neurologist) was a Florida doctor who was board
`
`certified in neurology and conductedhis customary business in Broward County.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant, Alexander Poisik, MD (Neurosurgeon#1) was a Florida doctor who, although
`
`not board certified in neurosurgery, was acting and holding himself out as a
`
`neurosurgeon, and conducted his customary business in Broward County.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant, Arnold Lang, MD (Neurosurgeon#2) was a Florida doctor who was board
`
`certified in neurosurgery and conductedhis customary business in BrowardCounty.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant, BrowardNeurosurgeons, LLC (BNLLC) was a Florida business entity and
`
`conductedits customary business in Broward County.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant, Columbia Hospital Corporation of South Broward (Hospital) was a Florida
`
`business entity and a licensedhospital, open to the public, and was acting under its
`
`license with the State of Florida and held itself out to the public as a general hospital that
`
`provided physicians for emergency room care, general medical care, surgical care,
`
`diagnostic studies, neurologic care, and many additional professionalhealthcare services,
`
`and conductedits customary business in Broward County.
`
`12.
`
`Hospital did business under its name and the name Westside Regional Medical Center.
`
`

`

`The Events
`
`13.
`
`On or about March 17, 2019, Plaintiff presented to Hospital complaining of right
`
`shoulder/armpain, numbness in the first through fourth fingers of his right hand for three
`
`days, and walking like a "drunk" for the past 1.5 weeks. He reported a history of
`
`musculardystrophy. He also reported weakness on the right side of his body.
`
`14.
`
`ER Dr. examined Plaintiff and ordered an electrocardiogram, CT scan of the brain, and a
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`chest x-ray but did not order any imaging of the neck.
`
`Er. Dr. consulted Neurologistby phone.
`
`ER Dr. noted that Neurologistsaid Plaintiff' s abnormal gait was due to muscular
`
`dystrophy and also noted that the right-hand numbness is along the median nerve
`
`distribution, and that Neurologistagreed with the plan to discharge Plaintiff with
`
`instructions to follow up with his primary care
`
`and return with
`
`concerns.
`
`17.
`
`On March 23, 2019, Plaintiff again presented via EMS to Hospital unable to walk and
`
`having weakness in upper and lower extremitiesalong with shortness of breath and
`
`generalized weakness. An MRI of the neck revealed a moderate-to-large disk protrusion
`
`with contact to the cervical spinal cord with associated central neck stenosis and
`
`myelomalacia.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Hospital provided Neurosurgeon #1 and Neurosurgeon #2 to treat Plaintiff.
`
`On March 27, 2019, Neurosurgeon #1 performed a C4-5 and C5-6 ACDF for spinal cord
`
`decompression.
`
`20.
`
`The surgery failed to adequatelydecompress the spinal cord.
`
`

`

`21.
`
`Neurosurgeon #1 and Neurosurgeon #2 failed to timely obtain adequate post-surgical
`
`follow up and although Plaintiff continued to have numbness and weakness, they failed to
`
`order a post-surgical MRI.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff was admitted to University Hospital and an MRI on April 6, 2019 revealed
`
`continued spinal cord compression and prevertebralswelling.
`
`23.
`
`Neurosurgeon #2 visited Plaintiff in University Hospital when Neurosurgeon #1 refused
`
`to, and Neurosurgeon #2 failed to appreciatethat Plaintiff needed repeat surgery due to
`
`prevertebralswelling and continued cord compression.
`
`24.
`
`Neurosurgeon #2 failed to inform Neurosurgeon #1 of the findings of the April 6, 2019
`
`MRI and reassured Plaintiff rather than advising him that he would require repeat
`
`surgical intervention to prevent additional neurologic damage.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff visitedNeurosurgeon #1 in an out-patient visit on April 16, 2019. Despite
`
`Plaintiff having continued numbness in the right arm and right foot, being wheel chair
`
`bound and unable to stand, Neurosurgeon #1 failed to order an MRI, made no comment
`
`about the April 6, 2019 MRI, and failed to appreciate the need for another surgery to
`
`further decompress the spinal cord. Rather, he ordered Plaintiff to return for a follow up
`
`in six months.
`
`26.
`
`When Plaintiff' s symptoms became worse, his neurologistreferred him to a different
`
`neurosurgeonin July 2019. At that time, he was found to be quadripareticwith
`
`fasciculations noted in all four extremities, requiring a cane to ambulate and having
`
`episodes of urinary incontinence.
`
`27.
`
`A repeat MRI showed continued spinal cord stenosis and compressionwith kyphotic
`
`deformity.
`
`

`

`28.
`
`As a result,Plaintiff has required multiple repeat surgeries and is left with chronic and
`
`permanent severe neurologic injuries.
`
`Count 1
`
`Negligenceagainst ER Dr.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`On or about March 17, 2019, Plaintiff presented to Hospital for non-emergencycare.
`
`ER Dr. undertook a duty to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance with the
`
`applicable standard of care and that duty includedbut was not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`Adequately and accuratelycommunicate the patient' s medical history and
`
`examination findings to consulting physicians;
`
`Consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in her differential diagnosis;
`
`Consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`32.
`
`ER Dr. breached the duty owned in these non-exclusiveways:
`
`a.
`
`Failing to adequately and accuratelycommunicate the patient' s medicalhistory
`
`and examination findings to consulting physicians;
`
`b.
`
`Failing to consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in her differential
`
`diagnosis;
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Failing to consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`33.
`
`ER Dr's breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent bodily
`
`injury, pain and suffering, disability,disfigurement,mental anguish, loss of capacity for
`
`the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization,medical and nursing care and
`
`

`

`treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either
`
`permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 2
`
`Negligence (reckless disregard) against ER Dr.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`On or about March 17, 2019, Plaintiff presented to Hospital for emergency care.
`
`ER Dr. undertook a duty to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance with the
`
`applicable standard of care and that duty includedbut was not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`Adequately and accuratelycommunicate the patient' s medical history and
`
`examination findings to consulting physicians;
`
`Consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in her differential diagnosis;
`
`Consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`37.
`
`ER Dr. breached the duty owned in these non-exclusiveways:
`
`a.
`
`Failing to adequately and accuratelycommunicate the patient' s medicalhistory
`
`and examination findings to consulting physicians;
`
`b.
`
`Failing to consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in her differential
`
`diagnosis;
`
`

`

`C.
`
`d.
`
`Failing to consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`38.
`
`ER Dr's breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent bodily
`
`injury, pain and suffering,disability,disfigurement,mental anguish, loss of capacity for
`
`the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization,medical and nursing care and
`
`treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either
`
`permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`39.
`
`ER Dr's conduct showed a reckless disregard for the life and health of Plaintiff.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 3
`
`Negligence (employerliability) against JYPPA
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`ER Dr. was an employee of JYPPA and acting in the course and scope of that position.
`
`As to ER Dr. negligentlyinjuring Plaintiff, paragraphs 30-33 and 35-39 incorporated.
`
`Because ER Dr. was an employee of JYPPA when she negligentlyinjured Plaintiff, the
`
`law imputes ER Dr' s negligence to JYPPA and JYPPA is vicariously liable for the
`
`damages causedby ER Dr.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`

`

`C.
`
`d.
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 4
`
`Negligenceagainst Neurologist
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`On or about March 17, 2019, Plaintiff presented to Hospital for non-emergencycare.
`
`ER Dr. called Neurologistfor a neurology consult regarding Plaintiff because Neurologist
`
`was the on-call neurologistpursuant Neurologist's on-call services agreement with
`
`Hospital.
`
`47.
`
`Neurologistundertook a duty to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance with
`
`the applicable standard of care and that duty included but was not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Travel to Hospital to examine Plaintiff on March 17, 2019;
`
`Alternatively, if he was unable to travel to Hospital, to have another neurologist
`
`be called to examine Plaintiff at Hospital on March 17, 2019;
`
`Appreciate that sensory deficit in the first through fourth fingers of the right hand
`
`of Plaintiff was not attributable to a history of muscular dystrophy;
`
`Include cervical disc and/or spinal cord compression in his differential diagnosis;
`
`Order appropriateradiographic imaging be performed at Hospital on March 17,
`
`2019; and
`
`f.
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`48.
`
`Neurologistbreached the duty owned in these non-exclusiveways:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Failing to travel to Hospital to examine Plaintiff on March 17, 2019;
`
`Alternatively, if he was unable to travel to Hospital,by failing to have another
`
`neurologistbe called to examine Plaintiff at Hospital on March 17, 2019;
`
`

`

`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Failing to appreciate that sensory deficit in the first through fourth fingers of the
`
`right hand of Plaintiff was not attributable to a history of muscular dystrophy;
`
`Failing to include cervical disc and/or spinal cord compressionin his differential
`
`diagnosis;
`
`Failing to order appropriateradiographic imaging be performed at Hospital on
`
`March 17, 2019; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`49.
`
`Neurologist's breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent bodily
`
`injury, pain and suffering,disability,disfigurement,mental anguish, loss of capacity for
`
`the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization,medical and nursing care and treatment,
`
`and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are eitherpermanent or
`
`continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 5
`
`Negligence (reckless disregard) against Neurologist
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`On or about March 17, 2019, Plaintiff presented to Hospital for emergency care.
`
`

`

`52.
`
`ER Dr. called Neurologistfor a neurology consult regarding Plaintiff because Neurologist
`
`was the on-call neurologistpursuantNeurologist's on-call services agreement with
`
`Hospital.
`
`53.
`
`Neurologistundertook a duty to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance with
`
`the applicable standard of care and that duty included but was not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Travel to Hospital to examine Plaintiff on March 17, 2019;
`
`Alternatively, if he was unable to travel to Hospital, to have anotherneurologist
`
`be called to examine Plaintiff at Hospital on March 17, 2019;
`
`Appreciate that sensory deficit in the first through fourth fingers of the right hand
`
`of Plaintiff was not attributable to a history of musculardystrophy;
`
`Include cervical disc and/or spinal cord compressionin his differential diagnosis;
`
`Order appropriateradiographic imaging be performed at Hospital on March 17,
`
`2019; and
`
`f.
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`54.
`
`Neurologistbreached the duty owned in these non-exclusiveways:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Failing to travel to Hospital to examine Plaintiff on March 17, 2019;
`
`Alternatively, if he was unable to travel to Hospital,by failing to have another
`
`neurologistbe called to examine Plaintiff at Hospital on March 17, 2019;
`
`Failing to appreciatethat sensory deficit in the first through fourth fingers of the
`
`right hand of Plaintiff was not attributable to a history of muscular dystrophy;
`
`Failing to include cervical disc and/or spinal cord compressionin his differential
`
`diagnosis;
`
`

`

`e.
`
`f.
`
`Failing to order appropriateradiographic imaging be performed at Hospital on
`
`March 17, 2019; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`55.
`
`Neurologist's breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent bodily
`
`injury, pain and suffering,disability,disfigurement,mental anguish, loss of capacity for
`
`the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization,medical and nursing care and treatment,
`
`and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are eitherpermanent or
`
`continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`56.
`
`Neurologist's conduct showed a reckless disregard for the life and health of Plaintiff.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 6
`
`Negligenceagainst Neurosurgeon#1
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`Neurosurgeon #1 undertook a duty to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance
`
`with the applicable standard of care and that duty includedbut was not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Adequately decompress the spinal cord during the surgery of March 27, 2019;
`
`Review and/or appreciate that the post-surgical MRI dated April 6, 2019 showed
`
`continued compressionof the spinal cord;
`
`

`

`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Review and/or appreciateprevertebralswelling that was evident on the post-
`
`surgical MRI dated April 6, 2019;
`
`Decompress the spinal cord by repeat surgical intervention;
`
`Advise Plaintiff of the need to decompress the spinal cord by repeat surgical
`
`interventionto prevent additional neurologic injury when the first surgery did not
`
`adequatelydecompress the spinal cord;
`
`Render appropriatepost-surgical follow up and care including the ordering of
`
`appropriateradiographic imaging; and
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`59.
`
`Neurosurgeon #1 breachedthe duty owed in these non-exclusiveways;
`
`a.
`
`Failing to adequatelydecompress the spinal cord during the surgery of March 27,
`
`2019;
`
`b.
`
`Failing to review and/or appreciatethat the post-surgical MRI dated April 6, 2019
`
`showed continued compression of the spinal cord;
`
`Failing to review and/or appreciateprevertebralswelling that was evident on the
`
`post-surgical MRI dated April 6, 2019;
`
`Failing to decompress the spinal cord by repeat surgical intervention;
`
`Failing to advise Plaintiff of the need to decompress the spinal cord by repeat
`
`surgical intervention to prevent additional neurologic injury when the first surgery
`
`did not adequatelydecompress the spinal cord;
`
`Failing to render appropriatepost-surgical follow up and care including the
`
`ordering of appropriateradiographic imaging; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`

`

`60.
`
`Neurosurgeon #1' s breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent
`
`bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability,disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of
`
`capacity for the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization,medical and nursing care
`
`and treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either
`
`permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 7
`
`Negligenceagainst Neurosurgeon#2
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`Neurosurgeon #2 undertook a duty to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance
`
`with the applicable standard of care and that duty includedbut was not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`Appreciate that the post-surgical MRI dated April 6, 2019 showed continued
`
`compressionof the spinal cord;
`
`b.
`
`Appreciateprevertebralswelling that was evident on the post-surgical MRI dated
`
`April 6, 2019;
`
`C.
`
`Alert the operating surgeon, Neurosurgeon #1, of the findings of the post-surgical
`
`MRI dated April 6, 2019, including continued spinal cord compressionand
`
`prevertebralswelling;
`
`

`

`d.
`
`e.
`
`Appreciate the need to recommendanother surgical procedure to decompress the
`
`spinal cord;
`
`Advise Plaintiff of the need to decompress the spinal cord by repeat surgical
`
`intervention to prevent additional neurological injury; and
`
`f.
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`63.
`
`Neurosurgeon #2 breached the duty owed in these non-exclusiveways;
`
`a.
`
`Failing to appreciate that the post-surgical MRI dated April 6, 2019 showed
`
`continued compressionof the spinal cord;
`
`b.
`
`Failing to appreciateprevertebralswelling that was evident on the post-surgical
`
`MRI dated April 6, 2019;
`
`C.
`
`Failing to alert the operating surgeon, Neurosurgeon #1, of the findings of the
`
`post-surgical MRI dated April 6, 2019, including continued spinal cord
`
`compression and prevertebralswelling;
`
`d.
`
`Failing to appreciatethe need to recommend another surgical procedure to
`
`decompress the spinal cord;
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Failing to advise Plaintiff of the need to decompress the spinal cord by repeat
`
`surgical intervention to prevent additional neurological injury; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`64.
`
`Neurosurgeon #2' s breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent
`
`bodily injury, pain and suffering, disability,disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of
`
`capacity for the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization,medical and nursing care
`
`and treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either
`
`permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`

`

`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgement for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 8
`
`Negligence (employerliability) against BNLLC
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`At all material times Neurosurgeon #1 was an employee of BNLLC and acting in the
`
`course and scope of that position.
`
`As to Neurosurgeon #1 injuring Plaintiff, paragraphs 58-60 incorporated.
`
`Because Neurosurgeon #1 was an employee of BNLLC when he negligentlyinjured
`
`Plaintiff, the law imputes Neurosurgeon #1' s negligence to BNLLC and BNLLC is
`
`vicariously liable for the damages caused by Neurosurgeon #1.
`
`69.
`
`At all material times Neurosurgeon #2 was an employee of BNLLC and acting in the
`
`course and scope of that position.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`As to Neurosurgeon #2 injuring Plaintiff, paragraphs 62-64 incorporated.
`
`Because Neurosurgeon #2 was an employee of BNLLC when he negligently injured
`
`Plaintiff, the law imputes Neurosurgeon #2' s negligence to BNLLC and BNLLC is
`
`vicariously liable for the damages caused by Neurosurgeon #2.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`

`

`C.
`
`d.
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Count 9
`
`Negligenceagainst Hospital
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`Hospital undertook to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance with the
`
`applicable standard of care.
`
`74.
`
`Pursuant to sections 395.001, 395.002, and/or 395.1055 of the Florida Statutes and/or Rule
`
`59A-3.245 of the Florida AdministrativeCode and/or the express/implied contract to treat
`
`Plaintiff, and/or the common law, Hospital owed a non-delegable duty to examine,
`
`diagnose, treat and attend to Plaintiff.
`
`75.
`
`Hospital' s duty owed to Plaintiff included:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`To provide non-negligent medical care;
`
`To perform a thorough and complete clinical examination based on the history and
`
`presentationof the patient;
`
`To order appropriate and/or necessary radiographic imaging and/or diagnostic
`
`studies;
`
`To formulate an appropriate and complete differential diagnosis and plan of care
`
`based on all informationgathered;
`
`To render appropriate treatment based on the findings of the clinical examination
`
`and medical testing performed;
`
`

`

`f.
`
`To order appropriate and timely follow-up care and/or referrals for further
`
`examination and/or care;
`
`g.
`
`Adequately and accuratelycommunicate the patient' s medicalhistory and
`
`examination findings to physicians participating in Plaintiff s care;
`
`Consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in a differential diagnosis;
`
`Consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`76.
`
`Hospital breachedits duty in these non-exclusiveways:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Failing to provide non-negligent medical care;
`
`Failing to perform a thorough and complete clinical examination based on the
`
`history and presentationof the patient;
`
`Failing to order appropriate and/or necessary radiographic imaging and/or
`
`diagnostic studies;
`
`Failing to formulate an appropriate and complete differential diagnosis and plan of
`
`care based on all informationgathered;
`
`Failing to render appropriate treatment based on the findings of the clinical
`
`examination and medical testing performed;
`
`Failing to order appropriate and timely follow-up care and/or referrals for further
`
`examination and/or care;
`
`Failing to adequately and accuratelycommunicate the patient' s medicalhistory
`
`and examination findings to physicians participating in Plaintiff's care;
`
`h.
`
`Failing to consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in a differential
`
`diagnosis;
`
`

`

`i.
`
`j.
`
`Failing to consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`77.
`
`Hospital' s breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent bodily
`
`injury, pain and suffering,disability,disfigurement,mental anguish, loss of capacity for
`
`the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization,medical and nursing care and
`
`treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either
`
`permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Prejudgment interest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Countl0
`
`Negligence(reckless disregard) against Hospital
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`Hospital undertook to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in accordance with the
`
`applicable standard of care.
`
`80.
`
`Pursuant to sections 395.001, 395.002, and/or 395.1055 of the Florida Statutes and/or
`
`Rule(s) 59A-3.245 and/or 59A-3.255 of the Florida Administrative Code and/or the
`
`express/implied contract to treat Plaintiff, and/or the common law, Hospital owed a non-
`
`delegable duty to examine, diagnose, treat and attend to Plaintiff.
`
`81.
`
`Hospital' s duty owed to Plaintiff included:
`
`a.
`
`To provide non-negligent medical care;
`
`

`

`b.
`
`To perform a thorough and complete clinical examination based on the history and
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`presentationof the patient;
`
`To order appropriate and/or necessary radiographic imaging and/or diagnostic
`
`studies;
`
`To formulate an appropriate and complete differential diagnosis and plan of care
`
`based on all informationgathered;
`
`To render appropriate treatment based on the findings of the clinical examination
`
`and medical testing performed;
`
`To order appropriate and timely follow-up care and/or referrals for further
`
`examination and/or care;
`
`g.
`
`Adequately and accuratelycommunicate the patient' s medical history and
`
`examination findings to physicians participating in Plaintiff s care;
`
`Consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in a differential diagnosis;
`
`Consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`82.
`
`Hospital breachedits duty in these non-exclusiveways:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Failing to provide non-negligent medical care;
`
`Failing to perform a thorough and complete clinical examination based on the
`
`history and presentationof the patient;
`
`Failing to order appropriate and/or necessary radiographic imaging and/or
`
`diagnostic studies;
`
`Failing to formulate an appropriate and complete differential diagnosis and plan of
`
`care based on all informationgathered;
`
`

`

`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Failing to render appropriate treatment based on the findings of the clinical
`
`examination and medical testing performed;
`
`Failing to order appropriate and timely follow-up care and/or referrals for further
`
`examination and/or care;
`
`Failing to adequately and accurately communicate the patient' s medicalhistory
`
`and examination findings to physicians participating in Plaintiff s care;
`
`h.
`
`Failing to consider cervical disc and/or spinal cord problem in a differential
`
`diagnosis;
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Failing to consider the need for an MRI of the cervical spine; and
`
`Failing to treat Plaintiff within the standard of care.
`
`83.
`
`Hospital' s breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer permanent bodily
`
`injury, pain and suffering,disability,disfigurement,mental anguish, loss of capacity for
`
`the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization,medical and nursing care and
`
`treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either
`
`permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer said losses in the future.
`
`84.
`
`Hospital' s conduct showed a reckless disregard for the life and health of Plaintiff.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`Prejudgment interest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`

`

`Countll
`
`Negligence (apparent agency liability) against Hospital
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`ER Dr. was Hospital's apparent agent and acting in the course and scope of that position
`
`because, among other things:
`
`a.
`
`Hospital made representationsto Plaintiff that created the appearance that ER Dr.
`
`was part of Hospital's staff;
`
`Hospital provided ER Dr. to treat Plaintiff;
`
`Hospital had ER Dr. act as its agent with regard to Plaintiff;
`
`Hospital held out ER Dr. as possessingauthority to act for Hospital; and
`
`Hospital attempted to discharge its duty to Plaintiff through ER Dr.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`87.
`
`Plaintiff relied on Hospital'
`
`'
`
`s representationswith regard to ER Dr. and changed his
`
`position in reliance on Hospital's representationsand treated with ER Dr.
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiff had no part in selecting ER Dr. to treat him and believed based on Hospital' s
`
`representationsthat Hospital was providing its own physician (ER Dr.) to treat him, and
`
`relied on Hospital to provide competent medical care.
`
`89.
`
`Hospital, through ER Dr., undertook to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`accordance with the applicable standard of care.
`
`Hospital attempted to discharge its duty owed to Plaintiff through ER Dr.
`
`As to ER Dr. negligentlyinjuring Plaintiff, paragraphs 30-33 and 35-39 incorporated.
`
`Because ER Dr. was an apparent agent of Hospital when she negligentlyinjured Plaintiff,
`
`the law imputes ER Dr '
`
`s negligenceto Hospital and Hospital is vicariously liable for the
`
`damages causedby ER Dr.
`
`

`

`93.
`
`Neurosurgeon #1 was Hospital's apparent agent and acting in the course and scope of that
`
`positionbecause, among other things:
`
`a.
`
`Hospital made representationsto Plaintiff that created the appearance that
`
`Neurosurgeon #1 was part of Hospital's staff;
`
`Hospital provided Neurosurgeon #1 to treat Plaintiff;
`
`Hospital had Neurosurgeon #1 act as its agent with regard to Plaintiff;
`
`Hospital held out Neurosurgeon #1 as possessingauthority to act for Hospital; and
`
`Hospital attempted to discharge its duty to Plaintiff through Neurosurgeon #1.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiff relied on Hospital's representationswith regard to Neurosurgeon #1 and
`
`changed his position in reliance on Hospital's representationsand treated with
`
`Neurosurgeon #1.
`
`95.
`
`Plaintiff had no part in selecting Neurosurgeon #1 to treat him and believed based on
`
`Hospital' s representationsthat Hospital was providing its own physician (Neurosurgeon
`
`#1) to treat him, and relied on Hospital to provide competent medical care.
`
`96.
`
`Hospital, through Neurosurgeon #1, undertook to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in
`
`accordance with the applicable standard of care.
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Hospital attempted to discharge its duty owed to Plaintiff through Neurosurgeon #1.
`
`As to Neurosurgeon #1 negligentlyinjuring Plaintiff, paragraphs 58-60 incorporated.
`
`Because Neurosurgeon #1 was an apparent agent of Hospital when he negligentlyinjured
`
`Plaintiff, the law imputes Neurosurgeon #1's negligence to Hospital and Hospital is
`
`vicariously liable for the damages causedby Neurosurgeon #1.
`
`

`

`100.
`
`Neurosurgeon #2 was Hospital's apparent agent and acting in the course and scope of that
`
`positionbecause, among other things:
`
`a.
`
`Hospital made representationsto Plaintiff that created the appearance that
`
`Neurosurgeon #2 was part of Hospital's staff;
`
`Hospital provided Neurosurgeon #2 to treat Plaintiff;
`
`Hospital had Neurosurgeon #2 act as its agent with regard to Plaintiff;
`
`Hospital held out Neurosurgeon #2 as possessingauthority to act for Hospital; and
`
`Hospital attempted to discharge its duty to Plaintiff through Neurosurgeon #2.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`101.
`
`Plaintiff relied on Hospital's representationswith regard to Neurosurgeon #2 and
`
`changed his position in reliance on Hospital's representationsand treated with
`
`Neurosurgeon #2.
`
`102.
`
`Plaintiff had no part in selecting Neurosurgeon #2 to treat him and believed based on
`
`Hospital' s representationsthat Hospital was providing its own physician (Neurosurgeon
`
`#2) to treat him, and relied on Hospital to provide competent medical care.
`
`103.
`
`Hospital, through Neurosurgeon #2, undertook to diagnose, care for, and treat Plaintiff in
`
`accordance with the applicable standard of care.
`
`104.
`
`Hospital attempted to discharge its duty owed to Plaintiff through Neurosurgeon #2.
`
`105.
`
`As to Neurosurgeon #2 negligentlyinjuring Plaintiff, paragraphs 62-64 incorporated.
`
`106.
`
`Because Neurosurgeon #2 was an apparent agent of Hospital when he negligentlyinjured
`
`Plaintiff, the law imputes Neurosurgeon #2' s negligence to Hospital and Hospital is
`
`vicariously liable for the damages causedby Neurosurgeon #2.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment for damages;
`
`

`

`b.
`
`C.
`
`d.
`
`Pre-judgmentinterest where applicable;
`
`Costs; and
`
`Jury trial.
`
`Countl2
`
`Negligence (actual agency liability) against Hospital
`
`107.
`
`Paragraphs 1-28 incorporated.
`
`108.
`
`ER Dr. was Hospital's actual agent and acting in the course and scope of that position
`
`because, among other things, Hospital acknowledged that ER Dr. would act for it with
`
`regar

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket