HomeMy WebLinkAbout0366 A much more serious deficiency appears in the proof
of when and how appellant allegedly learned of the acts consti-
tuting malpractice. °lhe complaint simply alleges thac at tine
Indian River Memorial Hospital Marlon was immediately hospital-
ized and "determined" to~have anemia, an infected wound and a
foreign object was removed from the wound. Surely one cannot
say the statute of limitations began to run on-that date because
appellant ^learned" or "knew" or "should have known" of the mal-
practice. For all we know it was "determined" by the hospital,
or the doctor involved. that Marlon suffered from the enumerated
conditions; but that allegation is hardly sufficient to charge °
appellant with knowledge.
Accordingly, the summary judgment appealed from is
reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings includ-
ing further motions for summary judgment with adequate support-
ing proof if the parties be so advised.
REVERSED AMID REMANDED.
r 25 t..1 • 38
,,9p1
_1
I~
0 pI~QP=~~
(.Fta'
` S`
ELK C
A
~
j Cv~ Z
CL c^
{o~F.
~'7
r
ANSTEAD, J., and CROSS, SPENCER C., Associate Judge, concur.
aoox 319 P~cE 365
i