Saunders v. Dickens
103 So. 3d 871
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Medical malpractice suit against Dr. Dickens for alleged failure to diagnose/correctly treat cervical cord compression leading to quadriplegia.
- Julie Saunders, as personal representative, appeals a defense verdict and an attorney’s fees award.
- Plaintiffs’ experts claimed failure to order a cervical MRI in July 2003 breached the standard of care; lumbar issues were treated earlier.
- Defendant argued the July 2003 cervical MRI would not have changed treatment decisions; cervical decompression was timely only if symptoms warranted.
- Jury found no causation; trial court later entered a fee judgment against the plaintiffs; appellate court partially reverses on fees and remands.
- Court discusses Letzter v. Cephas framework, Stuart v. Hertz, and apportionment of attorney’s fees between underlying injury and loss-of-consortium claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presuit screening compliance | Saunders argues the trial court should strike Dickens for presuit defects. | Dickens contends presuit requirements were timely satisfied. | No abuse; presuit compliance affirmed. |
| Closing argument and burden-shifting | Letzter-based causation theory should be properly presented; burden not shifted improperly. | Closing argument properly urged lack of causation based on Pasarin testimony. | Closing argument permissible; no reversible abuse. |
| Letzter instruction | Letzter instruction should have been given to address joint/initial-suspect causation. | No need for Letzter where damages and causation view not clearly dual tortfeasors. | Letzter instruction denied. |
| Attorney's fees allocation for loss of consortium | Fees should be allocated between underlying injury and consortium claims based on time and intertwining. | Fees for consortium claim should be allocated or deemed inseparable from each claim. | Remanded for evidentiary allocation; reversed in part on joint/separate fee award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Letzter v. Cephas, 792 So.2d 481 (Fla.4th DCA 2001) (Stuart v. Hertz framework for joint/initial tortfeasor causation; Letzter discussed in context of consortium/causation.)
- Ewing v. Sellinger, 758 So.2d 1196 (Fla.4th DCA 2000) (Causation defense upheld when subsequent treatment would not have altered outcome.)
- Goolsby v. Qazi, 847 So.2d 1001 (Fla.5th DCA 2003) (Disagrees with Ewing on potential causation under certain scenarios.)
- Munoz v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc., 764 So.2d 854 (Fla.3d DCA 2000) (What a non-party physician might have done is not always an element of the plaintiff's case.)
- McKeithan v. HCA Health Services of Florida, 879 So.2d 47 (Fla.4th DCA 2004) (Affirms directed verdict in some causation contexts; discusses Ewing concurrence.)
- Blanton v. Godwin, 98 So.3d 609 (Fla.2d DCA 2012) (Rejects blanket rule that consortium claims are always intertwined with underlying claims for fee purposes.)
- Peterson v. Sun State Int’l Trucks, LLC, 56 So.3d 840 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (Addresses loss of consortium framework and damages considerations.)