Source: http://www.palmbeachbar.org/intervening-cause-instruction-for-negligent-medical-treatment/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:46:58+00:00

Document:
When a plaintiff is injured in an automobile accident and obtains medical treatment for the injuries, the physician who provides that medical care is often put on trial in a subsequent personal injury suit arising from the accident. It is common practice for defendants in automobile cases to hire expert witnesses who criticize the treating physician’s decisions and suggest to the jury that plaintiff’s complaints come from the negligent medical treatment rather than from the initial injury.
Where is the line drawn as to when an instruction must be given to the jury informing them of the Stuart v. Hertz doctrine? In the recent case of Tucker v. Korpita, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2494 (Fla. 4th DCA, Nov. 16, 2011). The Fourth District tried to determine just where that line is drawn. The case under discussion was a rear end collision wherein the plaintiff had undergone a discectomy following the injuries suffered in the automobile accident. Defendants put witnesses on the stand who testified that the performance of a discectomy under these circumstances was not only totally contraindicated but could arguably make things worse. Plaintiffs requested the following jury instruction from Emory v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 687 So.2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
treatment of the physician or surgeon.
purported injuries and the alleged incident.
instruction being given as requested.
Testimony such as that presented in the case under discussion puts the plaintiff in the untenable position of not only having to prove liability in the automobile case but also forces the plaintiff to defend the medical treatment provided by the treating physician. It is almost as if the treating physician were being sued for malpractice creating a trial within a trial in the automobile case. Stuart v. Hertz, supra, has been the law in Florida for 35 years. The logic of that opinion is inescapable. The tortfeasor, having set in motion by negligent acts an injury, should be held liable for all of the consequences of that injury. Stuart v. Hertz specifically argued that absent such a finding plaintiffs would be forced to defend malpractice issues in what should be a simple automobile case. Absent negligence on the part of the plaintiff in obtaining medical care, the law places the burden of injuries on the defendant who caused them and not on the plaintiff who was simply seeking relief from those injuries. This case amplifies the Stuart v. Hertz opinion and makes it clear that when a defendant interjects the issue of causation based upon medical care obtained by a plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to an instruction that even if the injuries were made worse by the medical care obtained by the plaintiff, the defendant remains liable for the entire injury.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.