JAMES J. MC MANUS v. DR. G. A. GAMEZ
2D18-2371 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 7, 2019) (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for injuries sustained in a medical setting sounds in ordinary negligence, not medical negligence, if the act from which the claim arises is not directly related to medical care or services requiring the use of professional judgment or skill. When medical services have concluded, a subsequent injury resulting from an unsafe condition may constitute ordinary negligence that jurors can assess using common experience.
Facts:
- On July 1, 2013, James J. McManus had an appointment for neurological testing with Dr. G.A. Gamez and Joan Denmark.
- After the testing was completed, Dr. Gamez and Ms. Denmark left the examination room.
- McManus was left alone on an examination table that did not have side rails.
- McManus then fell from the table, striking his head and losing consciousness.
- As a result of the fall, McManus suffered a concussion and other continuing injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- James J. McManus filed a complaint against Dr. G.A. Gamez and Joan Denmark in the Circuit Court for Lee County, a state trial court.
- Dr. Gamez and Ms. Denmark filed a motion to dismiss, arguing McManus failed to comply with the statutory presuit screening requirements for medical negligence claims.
- The trial court abated (paused) the case to allow McManus to comply with the presuit requirements.
- McManus filed a motion to amend his complaint to allege ordinary negligence instead of medical negligence, which the trial court denied.
- The defendants then filed a second motion to dismiss with prejudice, citing McManus's continued failure to comply with presuit requirements within the statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed McManus's complaint with prejudice.
- McManus (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, with Dr. Gamez and Ms. Denmark as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim for injuries sustained by a patient who fell from an examination table after a medical procedure was completed, and after medical staff had left the room, sound in ordinary negligence rather than medical negligence, thereby exempting the plaintiff from statutory medical malpractice presuit requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Morris, Judge
Yes. A claim that medical providers were negligent for leaving a patient alone on an examination table without side rails after a procedure was completed constitutes a claim for ordinary negligence, not medical negligence. For a claim to sound in medical malpractice, the act must be directly related to medical care or services requiring the use of professional judgment or skill. Here, McManus's neurological testing had concluded, and no medical services were being rendered at the time of the fall. Unlike cases where patients fall while being moved by staff or while under direct supervision for a medical condition, this situation did not involve a breach of the professional standard of care. Instead, jurors can use their common experience to determine whether leaving a person on an examination table without side rails constitutes a negligent act. The court concluded that any doubt as to whether a claim is for ordinary or medical negligence should be resolved in favor of the claimant.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between ordinary negligence and medical negligence in cases involving injuries on medical premises. It establishes that the temporal and functional relationship to the provision of medical services is key; once active medical care has ceased, a healthcare provider's duty may revert from a professional standard to an ordinary duty of care. This precedent benefits plaintiffs by allowing them to avoid the onerous presuit requirements of Florida's medical malpractice statute for claims that do not involve a breach of professional medical judgment. The ruling reinforces the principle that courts should resolve ambiguity in favor of classifying a claim as ordinary negligence, thereby providing an easier path to litigation for certain types of injuries.
