Case Name: William T. JOYNER, M.D., William T. Joyner, M.D., P.A., a Florida professional Corporation, and Joyner & Lichtinger, M.D., P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation, Appellants, v. Maria CASCO and Luis Casco, individually and as parents and legal guardians of Baby Jackeline Casco, a minor, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-09-01
Citations: 882 So. 2d 455
Docket Number: No. 4D03-2689
Parties: William T. JOYNER, M.D., William T. Joyner, M.D., P.A., a Florida professional Corporation, and Joyner & Lichtinger, M.D., P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation, Appellants, v. Maria CASCO and Luis Casco, individually and as parents and legal guardians of Baby Jackeline Casco, a minor, Appellees.
Judges: WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 882
Pages: 455–456

Head Matter:
William T. JOYNER, M.D., William T. Joyner, M.D., P.A., a Florida professional Corporation, and Joyner & Lichtinger, M.D., P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation, Appellants, v. Maria CASCO and Luis Casco, individually and as parents and legal guardians of Baby Jackeline Casco, a minor, Appellees.
No. 4D03-2689.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 1, 2004.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 2004.
Nancy W. Gregoire and Elizabeth E. Daugherty of Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschb-aum, Keller, McIntyre & Gregoire, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., and Bradley Winston of Winston & Clark, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Dr. William Joyner, and his corporation were defaulted for failure to answer a complaint for medical malprac tice. They claim that the defaults were the result of excusable neglect. The trial court took testimony as well as read the depositions submitted for review. The main issue to resolve was whether Joyner was advised by plaintiffs attorney that he did not have to answer the complaint. Reviewing the conflicting evidence presented, the court denied the motion to vacate the default. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate when disputed issues of fact were present. See Trupin v. Wallquist, 605 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We affirm as to the remaining issues raised.
WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ" concur.