KIM KASHUK, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, JAY KASHUK, AND JAY KASHUK, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SURFSIDE PHARMACY, INC. AND MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case addresses whether expert testimony establishing causation between defendants' negligent acts and aggravation of a plaintiff's preexisting psychiatric condition was properly excluded. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that both expert witnesses lacked sufficient knowledge of the plaintiff's preexisting condition to opine on its aggravation.
The directed verdict was properly entered because the plaintiff's only two experts failed to establish that the defendants' negligent acts caused aggravation of the preexisting condition. Both experts lacked knowledge of the plaintiff's preexisting condition, rendering their opinions legally insufficient to support a claim of aggravation.
[1] A hypothetical question seeking to establish the causal relationship and aggravation of a psychiatric disorder must identify the preexisting condition.
[2] Expert testimony is properly excluded when the expert lacks knowledge of the plaintiff's preexisting condition from which to form an opinion of its aggravation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the hypothetical question by which the causal relationship and aggravation of a psychiatric disorder were to be established failed to identify the preexisting condition and thus any testimony based on it was properly excluded”
Establishes the requirement that hypothetical questions in medical causation cases must adequately identify the preexisting condition being addressed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKim Kashuk, a minor, and her father Jay Kashuk brought suit against Surfside Pharmacy and Mount Sinai Hospital alleging that the defendants' negligent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff brought an action against Surf-side Pharmacy and Mt. Sinai Hospital on a theory that defendants’ negligent acts aggravated a preexisting mental condition. The trial court disallowed the testimony of the plaintiff’s two expert physicians and ultimately directed a verdict in favor of the defendants. We affirm. The only expert testimony presented by the plaintiff to establish that the defendants' acts caused an aggravation of the plaintiffs preexisting condition was that of Drs. Shellow and Gilbert.
As to Dr. Shellow, we find that: (1) the hypothetical question by which the causal relationship and aggravation of a psychiatric disorder were to be established failed to identify the preexisting condition and thus any testimony based on it was properly excluded; see Steiger v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (the nature of the plaintiffs psychiatric condition at the time of the accident was a necessary element in a hypothetic question which purported to state a medical history of the plaintiff); (2) direct and cross-examination of the expert revealed that he had no knowledge of the plaintiffs preexisting condition from which he could form an opinion of its aggravation;1 Caputo v. Taylor, 403 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); see also Husky Industries, Inc. v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Tarkoff v. Schmunk, 117 So. 2d 442 (Fla.2d DCA 1959); and (3) his opinion amounted to little more than a guess. Husky Industries, Inc. Turning to Dr. Gilbert, we conclude, as we did with respect to Dr. Shellow, that he had no knowledge of the preexisting condition from which he could form an opinion.2 See Caputo; Husky Industries, Inc. The only two experts presented by the plaintiff to establish that the incidents in question caused an aggravation of her preexisting condition were unable to do so. Thus, we conclude that the directed verdict was properly entered. Caputo, 403 So. 2d at 554.
Affirmed.
. In response to the question: “You do not know how Kim was before these episodes, do you?", Dr. Gilbert testified, “No, I do not."
. When testifying as to the plaintiff's prior condition, Dr. Shellow stated:
What I am saying is that she had some kind of a condition, I do not know what that condition is.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Husky Indus., Inc. v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Steiger v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Tarkoff v. Schmunk, 117 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Caputo v. Taylor, 403 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)