In automobile accident case, appellate court affirmed trial judge’s granting a motion for new trial, but because it was unclear as to the scope, remanded with instructions that the new trial should be on the issue of comparative liability only (since there was evidence the plaintiff who collided with a parked truck had poor eyesight), but the finding the defendant was liable and the damages award should not be disturbed. Botta v. Florida Power & Light Co., 41 Fla. D1744 (Fla. 4th DCA July 27, 2016).
Trial court properly dismissed wrongful death action brought against s mental facility and its attending physician because allegations that defendants used “false” documents which allowed voluntary dismissal were essentially challenging the psychiatrist’s evaluation that decedent was competent to consent which in essence a claim for medical malpractice and plaintiff failed to comply with the presuit requirements of Chapter 766. Haslett v. Broward Health Imperial Point Medical Center, 197 So.3d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA July 20, 2016).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing complaint against Home Depot alleging plaintiff was injured when a fire extinguisher fell and hit her neck and shoulder with prejudice as being a fraud on the court because there was medical evidence plaintiff had visited an emergency room seven months before incident complaining of neck and shoulder pain and that eight months after the incident plaintiff was involved in a serious automobile accident. Diaz v. Home Depot, USA, 196 So.3d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA July 13, 2016).
Trial court erred by entering a final judgment in favor of plaintiff in claim against former employer for unlawfully retaliating against him for filing a worker’s compensation claim in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes because plaintiff “was unable to work due to his on-the-job physical injuries. Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. v. Amaya, 201 So.3d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA July 13, 2016).
Appellate court affirmed trial court’s dismissal of complaint for defamation, agreeing that the two-year statute of limitations under the single publication rule barred the claim and certifying the following as question of great public importance: “Does the single publication rule bar any defamation claim based upon information reported to the NPDB [National Practitioner Data Bank] if not commenced within two years of the date of the report?” Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 200 So.3d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA July 1, 2016).