HomeMy WebLinkAbout0058 Stal}:er further stated that the performing of a closed reduction
on June 23 with no X-ray fron that date (except for t`~e one
im,-nediately after the reduction) until August 13, 1970, would
fall below the normal standard of care. The recommendeci pro-
cedure when such a closed reduction is performed is to take
serial X-rays after the reduction in order to see if the fracture
remains stabilized.
After conferring with Dr. Stalker, Mr. Parker researched
the law which correctly indicated to him that expert medical testi-
nonv_ is not always required to establish medical malpractice.
- t
Mr. Darker then advised Dr. Sullivan by correspondence
of his client's claim. Parker received no answer from Dr. Sullivan,
- ,
but his correspondence proMpted settlement negotiations with ren-
resentatives of Dr. Sulliv3n's malpractice insurance carrier.
The insurance carrier felt the clairi had merit, but could not
F
settle it without Dr. Sullivan's permission, which was refused.
Thereafter, on Mr. Terry's approval, suit was insti-
tute3 on July 8, 1971. The case was never tried. At Terry's
a
request, it was voluntarily dismissed immediately prior to trial. ~
Dr. Sullivan subsequently filed the present malicious prosecu-
tian action.
Obviously, Mr. ParY.er did not know what Dr. Sullivan's
j trial testimony would be at the time the ralpractice suit was
filed, but that testir.~ony confirms the information which was
~ within the knowledge of !~!r. Parker and Mr. '"erry when suit was
instituted. This testimony also bears directly on the overall
insufficiency of plaintiff's evidence as presented in the plain-
. ;
tiff's case. See Pickard v. Maritime Holdings Cornoration,
161 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3rd DCA 19E~}) .
:9ith respect to inserting the rod into the wrist area,
Dr. Sullivan testified on direct examination as follows: ~
QUESTIOrI: Getting into 1970, and Mr. Terry,
did you put the rod in too long?
A?~S[~IER : Yes , I did .
QUFSTIOIJ : i9hy?
. -5 ~ -
aooK P~ '