Hazen v. Kaplan4/30/1999
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Raymond T. McNeal, Judge.
Daniel Hazen and his wife, Marlene Hazen, appeal a final summary final judgment in favor of appellees Gregory J. Howell, M.D., Ocala Neurodiagnostic Center, P.A., Mark A. Yap, M.D., Radiology Associates of Ocala, P.A., Ravi Kamar Velisetti, M.D., and Anesthesia Care Team, Inc. We affirm.
Daniel Hazen went to the emergency room at Monroe Regional Medical Center on 24 June 1994 complaining of weakness in his lower extremities and severe lower back pain. Hazen had gone to the emergency room five days earlier complaining of left hip and back pain, and was sent home with pain medication. The pain persisted, and he began experiencing weakness in his legs, twice falling or nearly falling when his legs buckled. He was able to walk, though with difficulty. During his 24 June emergency room visit, radiographic tests, including a myelogram , were ordered, and Hazen was admitted to the hospital.
On the morning of 25 June 1994, appellee Velisetti, an anesthesiologist, explained to Hazen he would need to administer a caudal block rather than general anesthesia for the myelogram because Hazen needed to be awake during the test. Appellee Yap performed the myelogram around 3:00 p.m. that day. The next morning, 26 June 1994, Hazen discovered he felt no pain, was numb from his hips down, and could not move his legs. Velisetti and nursing staff blamed the numbness and inability to move on the anesthesia, telling Hazen it had not yet worn off. Hazen thought this strange because, in his experience, it usually took only four to five hours for the effects of anesthesia to wear off. He thought either something had gone wrong or his condition was worse than the doctors originally thought.
The myelogram revealed massive disc herniation in his lumbar spine, and appellees Howell and Kaplan , Hazen's attending physician and neurologist, respectively, advised Hazen he urgently needed surgery. Kaplan performed a laminectomy and discectomy on 27 June 1994. However, Hazen remained paralyzed following the surgery.
He was discharged from the hospital on 1 July 1994 and had six subsequent office visits with Kaplan between July 1994 and February 1995. On 3 August 1994, Hazen visited Dr. Robert Brill complaining of left shoulder pain. Dr. Brill's notes from that initial visit state:
"[Hazen] had back surgery about five weeks ago. He is paralyzed from the waist down. He states that he is paralyzed from a myelogram."
On 8 June 1995, Hazen served Kaplan with a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation, see ยง 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994), and subsequently filed suit on 4 October 1995. Hazen did not serve Howell, Velisetti, Yap, and their employers with a notice of intent to initiate litigation until 3 January 1997. On 9 May 1997, he amended the complaint against Kaplan to add Howell and the others as defendants.
The appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing Hazen served the notice of intent beyond the limitations period, and thus, his action against them is barred. Ruling that the statute of limitations began to run no later than 3 August 1994, the date of Hazen's visit and statement to Dr. Brill, the trial court entered final summary judgment for the appellees. The court noted that Hazen's paralysis is the type of injury which should start the limitations period running immediately. Hazen argues on appeal that, under Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1993), the paralysis he suffered after undergoing the myelogram and surgery is not the type of injury which, standing alone, would have indicated that medical negligence possibly had occurred,
Page 1 2 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|