Source: https://www.appellatestrategist.com/2009/07/articles/jurisdictions/florida/torts/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:46:14+00:00

Document:
Medical Malpractice – Presuit Requirements.  Is a trial court’s determination that a plaintiffs’ corroborating presuit expert does not meet the statutory requirements reviewed for an abuse of discretion or under a de novo standard of review?  In analyzing purported presuit discovery violations, is an appellate court required to consider either the prejudice to the defendants or the factors set forth in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993)? Morris v. Muniz, No. SC16-931 (review granted Jan. 19, 2017). DCA decision: 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 27, 2016). Status: briefing; no oral argument.
Stand-Your-Ground-Law – Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel. Certified Conflict: Does a criminal defendant who successfully establishes immunity from criminal prosecution under Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground-Law, § 776.032(1), Fla. Stat., have to prove it again in a subsequent civil suit arising from the same incident? Kumar v. Patel, No. SC16-1457 (review granted Oct. 14, 2016). DCA decision: 196 So. 3d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA June 29, 2016). Status: briefing; no oral argument.
Engle-Progeny Tobacco Cases – Preemption. Certified Question: Whether federal law implicitly preempts state law tort claims of strict liability and negligence by Engle progeny plaintiffs based on the sale of cigarettes. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marotta, No. SC16-218 (review granted Mar. 8, 2016). DCA decision: 182 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 6, 2016). Status: decision pending; Oral Argument Video (Nov. 1, 2016); briefing complete (July 28, 2016).
Engle-Progeny Tobacco Cases – Comparative Fault. Does Florida’s comparative fault statute apply to Engle-progeny cases when the plaintiff has prevailed on an intentional tort claim? Schoeff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. SC15-2233 (review granted May 26, 2016). DCA decision: 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 4, 2015) Status: decision pending; Oral Argument Video (Mar. 8, 2017); briefing complete (Oct. 10, 2016).
Medical Malpractice – Admissibility of Testimony from Subsequent Treating Physician. Does the prohibition announced in Saunders v. Dickens, 151 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2014)—that a physician cannot insulate himself or herself from liability for negligence by presenting a subsequent treating physician who testifies that adequate care by the defendant physician would not have altered the subsequent care—apply to a co-treating/consultant physician testifying as a “hybrid” treating physician expert witness? Cantore v. West Boca Med. Ctr., Inc., No. SC15-1926 (review granted Oct. 11, 2016). DCA decision: 174 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 24, 2015). Status: decision pending; briefing complete (Mar. 23, 2017); no oral argument.
Medical Malpractice – Admissibility of Testimony from Subsequent Treating Physician. Does the prohibition announced in Saunders v. Dickens, 151 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2014)—that a physician cannot insulate himself or herself from liability for negligence by presenting a subsequent treating physician who testifies that adequate care by the defendant physician would not have altered the subsequent care—apply to a co-treating/consultant physician testifying as a “hybrid” treating physician expert witness? Gutierrez v. Vargas, No. SC15-1924 (review granted Oct. 10, 2016). DCA decision: 176 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 26, 2015). Status: decision pending; briefing complete (Jan. 11, 2017); no oral argument.
Medical Malpractice – Amendment 7 – External Peer Review Reports. Do external peer review reports fall within the ambit of Amendment 7 which provides patients with a right of “access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident”? Edwards v. Thomas, No. SC15-1893 (review granted Oct. 10, 2016). DCA decision: 175 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 2015), sub nom. Bartow HMA, LLC v. Edwards. Status: oral argument is scheduled for May 2, 2017; briefing complete (Feb. 24, 2017).
Negligence – Railroad’s Duty of Care to Employee. Does a railroad’s duty under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, to provide employees with a safe work place with prompt medical care include reasonably anticipating foreseeable medical emergencies and the problems that may arise if they occur in a remote area? Sells v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. SC15-1639 (review granted Feb. 19, 2016). DCA decision: 170 So. 3d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA May 4, 2015). Status: decision pending; Oral Argument Video (Mar. 6, 2017); briefing complete (Dec. 12, 2016).
Equitable Subrogation – Subsequent Tortfeasor. Certified Question: Is a party that has had judgment entered against it entitled to seek equitable subrogation from a subsequent tortfeasor when the judgment has not been fully satisfied? Holmes Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. SC15-1555 (review granted June 10, 2016). DCA decision: 171 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2015). Status: decision pending; briefing complete (Nov. 7, 2016); no oral argument.
Medical Malpractice Presuit Notice – Validity of 2013 Amendments. Are the 2013 amendments to the medical malpractice presuit notice sections of the Florida Statutes (§§ 766.106, 766.1065), which allow for presuit ex parte interviews between potential defendants and the potential claimant’s treating health care providers and require the potential claimant to sign a written waiver of federal privacy protection concerning relevant medical information before instigating a medical malpractice lawsuit, unconstitutional or preempted by the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)? Weaver v Myers, No. SC15-1538 (review granted Apr. 13, 2016). DCA decision: 170 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA July 21, 2015). Status: decision pending; Oral Argument Video (Dec. 8, 2016); briefing complete (Aug. 24, 2016).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 776
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 51
 v. 
 v.