Case Name: Mikel GREEN, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margaret Green, Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. EMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Skylake Medical Group and Dr. Larry Katz, Appellees, Cross-Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-12-30
Citations: 725 So. 2d 1194
Docket Number: No. 98-664
Parties: Mikel GREEN, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margaret Green, Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. EMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Skylake Medical Group and Dr. Larry Katz, Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 725
Pages: 1194–1195

Head Matter:
Mikel GREEN, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margaret Green, Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. EMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a Skylake Medical Group and Dr. Larry Katz, Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
No. 98-664.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 30, 1998.
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1999.
Fuller, Mallah & Associates, P.A., Miami Beach; Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin and Perwin and Joel S. Per-win, Miami, for Mikel Green.
O’Connor and Meyers and David R. Cas-setty, for EMSA Limited Partnership and Dr. Larry Katz.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff in a medical malpractice case appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for one of the deceased patient's treating physicians, Dr. Larry Katz. A co-defendant, the medical group of which Dr. Katz was a member, EMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Skylake Medical Group, cross appeals from a similar judgment entered against it in the plaintiffs favor.
Rejecting the sole point on direct appeal, we first find no harmful error in the submission to the jury, in response to its specific request during its deliberations, of a chart used by defense counsel during the trial. See Brancaccio v. Jackal Corp., 641 So.2d 114, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(Gersten, J., specially concurring), review denied, 650 So.2d 989 (Fla.1994); Newberry Square Dev. Corp. v. Southern Landmark, Inc., 578 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), cause dismissed, 584 So.2d 999 (Fla.1991). Hence, the judgment in Dr. Katz's favor is affirmed.
We reach the contrary conclusion on EMSA's cross-appeal. The verdict for Dr. Katz itself precluded any recovery based on vicarious liability for his actions upon his group, EMSA. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So.2d 530 (Fla.1985); Williams v. Hines, 80 Fla. 690, 86 So. 695 (1920); City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 166 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Because we find no competent evidence to sustain a finding that EMSA was itself guilty of any additional, independent, actionable breach of duty, see Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 73 So.2d 403 (Fla.1954); City of Coral Gables v. Logan, 317 So.2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 19 (Fla.1976), the judgment against it cannot stand.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.