Source: http://www.palmbeachbar.org/liability-for-negligent-subsequent-treatment/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:20:34+00:00

Document:
In Nason v. Shafranski, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D943 (Fla. 4th DCA, April 28, 2010) the Fourth District was faced with a case where the application of the Stuart v. Hertz doctrine was necessary in that case. In this case a jury verdict which was deemed by the plaintiff to be inadequate was appealed alleging error by the trial court in allowing a defendant’s medical expert to testify that the surgeries performed by plaintiff’s treating doctor were unnecessary and worsened his condition and refusing to give a jury instruction outlining the Stuart v. Hertz doctrine. Defendant’s medical expert testified that plaintiff merely suffered a sprain in the automobile accident that should have been treated with medication and that surgery was not appropriate. In fact, the plaintiff received a discogram, a nucleoplasty, the removal of two herniated discs and the performance of two fusions. Plaintiff’s medical bills alone totaled over $300,000.00 and he was facing an operation for a two level disc replacement. Defendant argued to the jury that the surgeries performed by the treating physician had made the plaintiff worse, that he didn’t need the surgery to begin with and that no future surgery was indicated.
The Court cited Emory v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, 687 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) and Dungan v. Ford, 632 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) both of which support the giving of the requested instruction under these circumstances. The Court rejected defendants’ arguments that they never claimed the treating physician was negligent and were merely questioning the reasonableness of the medical charges pointing out that the same arguments had been rejected in Emory and Dungan, supra. The Court cited with approval Dungan, supra, to the effect that reasonableness and necessity as it relates to medical treatment can be established by lay testimony and thus involves a question of necessity from the standpoint of the injured party rather than a medical expert. Thus a defense that attacks the reasonableness of medical treatment on a medical basis is clearly violative of the Stuart v. Hertz doctrine since such a proposition flies in the face of the law enunciated in Stuart v. Hertz that even if medical treatment was ill advised, it still is the responsibility of the initial tortfeasor.
There is no standard jury instruction on this subject and the concurring opinion of Judge Farmer recommends a plain English draft of an appropriate instruction until one is approved by the Supreme Court.
A tortfeasor is responsible for injuries directly caused by negligence if the plaintiff reasonably seeks medical care and that medical care results in an exacerbation rather than alleviation of the plaintiff’s injuries. The law of Florida is that the initial tortfeasor remains responsible for the entire injury including any such aggravation.

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