Court Opinion

ID: 7498837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 04:21:09.53876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:23:14.291448
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellee contends that because there was no allegation of the specific malady actually suffered by the patient, the fifth amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for erroneous diagnosis under the rationale of Hill v. Boughton, 146 Fla. 505, 1 So.2d 610 (1941). Assuming the principles of Hill are still applicable despite the liberalizing of pleading standards which has occurred *576since 1941, the subject complaint, nevertheless, contained sufficient allegations of negligent treatment to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Motion denied.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.