Case Name: David S. STEWART, M.D., and Alliance Medical Practices, Inc., a Florida corporation a/k/a AHP Medical Practices, Inc., a Florida corporation d/b/a Santa Fe Women's Health Group, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Sheila Gayle CANNON and Michael Earl Cannon, her husband, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-11-13
Citations: 802 So. 2d 1150
Docket Number: No. 1D01-302
Parties: David S. STEWART, M.D., and Alliance Medical Practices, Inc., a Florida corporation a/k/a AHP Medical Practices, Inc., a Florida corporation d/b/a Santa Fe Women’s Health Group, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Sheila Gayle CANNON and Michael Earl Cannon, her husband, Appellees.
Judges: BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 802
Pages: 1150–1151

Head Matter:
David S. STEWART, M.D., and Alliance Medical Practices, Inc., a Florida corporation a/k/a AHP Medical Practices, Inc., a Florida corporation d/b/a Santa Fe Women’s Health Group, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Sheila Gayle CANNON and Michael Earl Cannon, her husband, Appellees.
No. 1D01-302.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 13, 2001.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 2002.
Michael J. Thomas and William D. Hor-gan of Fuller, Johnson & Farrell, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.
Thomas John Dandar of Dandar & Dan-dar, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an order denying their motion for judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict in this medical malpractice action. They argue that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to establish that any negligence on the part of appel lant Stewart was the proximate cause of appellees' loss, injury or damage. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that it contains competent, substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found that, but for appellant Stewart's negligence, appellees' baby more likely than not would have been born alive and healthy, rather than stillborn. See, e.g., Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Fla.1984) ("In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiffs injury"). Accordingly, we affirm. See Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla.1997) (parents may recover damages for mental pain and anguish and medical expenses incurred incident to pregnancy when their child is stillborn as the result of negligence of another).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.