Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
SHEANISE BROXTON AND LAMARIO BROXTON, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF DANIEL BROXTON, A MINOR vs FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, 18-002507N (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Health Care, Florida May 11, 2018 Number: 18-002507N Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2019

Findings Of Fact Daniel was born on March 13, 2013, at the Medical Center located in Vero Beach, Florida. At the time of Daniel’s birth, Dr. Prieto was a “participating physician” who participated in the Plan for the year in which the injury occurred. See § 766.302(7), Fla. Stat. Upon receiving the Petition, NICA retained Donald Willis, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist specializing in maternal-fetal medicine, to review Daniel’s medical records. NICA sought to obtain an opinion whether an injury to Daniel’s brain or spinal cord at birth caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurred in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period, and whether that injury rendered Daniel permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. After reviewing Daniel’s medical records, Dr. Willis opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical probability: [T]here was no apparent obstetrical event that resulted in oxygen deprivation or mechanical trauma to the brain or spine during labor, delivery and the immediate post-delivery period. Based on the opinion and conclusions of Dr. Willis, NICA determined that Petitioners’ claim was not compensable. A review of the file reveals that no contrary evidence disputes Dr. Willis’ findings. His opinion is credible and persuasive. NICA subsequently filed the Unopposed Motion for Summary Final Order asserting that the Petition should be dismissed for two reasons. First, NICA asserts that Daniel has not suffered a “birth-related neurological injury” as defined by section 766.302(2). Second, NICA declares that Petitioners’ claim is untimely because Petitioners filed their Petition more than five years after Daniel’s birth. Therefore, under section 766.313, Petitioners’ claim for compensation on behalf of Daniel is time-barred. Both of NICA’s arguments have merit. Petitioners do not oppose NICA’s motion.

Florida Laws (9) 766.301766.302766.303766.304766.305766.309766.311766.313766.316
# 8

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer