Expert Nurses & Malpractice Suits by Elizabeth Einhorn: Florida Case Law

Trial court reasonably found nurse to be qualified to opine as a medical expert on the issues of the standard of care and medical causation.
Nurse did not violate statute requiring her to disclose whether any of her previous opinions had been disqualified.
Nurse was duly and regularly engaged in the practice of nursing.

Trial court committed reversible error when it refused to grant hospital a continuance until nurse, who was pregnant and was advised by her doctor not to travel to trial, could appear in person and testify before the jury, in medical malpractice case against hospital that alleged nurse failed to monitor patient after open heart surgery and administered an overdose of medication; no other witness could give testimony in place of nurse, as the claim against hospital was based solely on the allegation that nurse was negligent, the hospital sought a continuance three months before trial, and the denial of the motion prevented the jury from hearing nurse's live testimony.

Registered nurse practitioner's own investigation of potential medical malpractice claim against her was not waiver of requirement that patient provide registered nurse practitioner with verified written medical expert opinion corroborating reasonable grounds to support claim of medical negligence.

Testimony by expert for patient's estate as to a number of things that advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) allegedly did wrong in treating patient's stage IV bedsore, including failing to change antibiotics, failing to have a culture done, and failing to chart what ARNP was doing and why, was insufficient on medical malpractice claim to establish that ARNP proximately caused the wound not to heal properly and caused patient's alleged pain and suffering; expert did not testify that patient would have had a better than even chance of improving had the alleged deficiencies not occurred.

Florida law did not place an “independent legal duty” on licensed advanced registered nurse practitioner (ARNP) to properly diagnose patient as having ruptured tendons in his arms, and expert, who was California nurse practitioner, was not competent to contradict the law of Florida by stating that ARNP owed an independent legal duty to patient.

The District Court of Appeal consolidated the appeals and held that: (1) admissibility of testimony by several nurses was preserved for appellate review by denied motion in limine to exclude and objection at trial to first offer of such testimony; (2) nurses' testimony was not admissible to show physician had a habit of prematurely extubating patients; (3) nurses' testimony was admissible as relevant to punitive damages claim against hospital to show that hospital had received, but not acted upon, complaints against physician.

The District Court of Appeal held that nurse who had extensive training and experience in critical care and cardiovascular services was qualified as medical expert to provide corroboration about medical causation.

Nurse's affidavits, attached to patient's notice of intent to initiate suit, demonstrated that nurse was qualified as a medical expert, and nurse was qualified to render opinion on causation.