Salinetro v. Nystrom

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 1977 · Torts

TortsMedical MalpracticeNegligenceExpert TestimonyCausationmedical malpracticecausationdirected verdict

Facts

After an automobile accident, Anna Salinetro was required by her insurer to undergo a medical examination by Dr. Nystrom, who took x-rays of her lower back and abdominal area on December 10. Anna was then about four to six weeks pregnant, but neither Dr. Nystrom nor his staff asked whether she was pregnant or the date of her last menstrual period. Two days later her gynecologist, Dr. Aldereguia, confirmed her pregnancy, and in January, after learning of the x-rays, advised termination because of possible fetal damage; Anna then underwent a therapeutic abortion. At trial, the court refused to allow Dr. Aldereguia, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist, to testify as an expert on whether Dr. Nystrom's conduct fell below the standard of care, and then directed a verdict for Dr. Nystrom.

Issue

Did Anna present a prima facie medical malpractice case against Dr. Nystrom based on his failure to ask about pregnancy before taking x-rays? Also, was her gynecologist qualified to testify as an expert regarding the standard of care applicable to Dr. Nystrom?

Rule

Liability for negligence requires a showing that the plaintiff's injury was caused by the defendant's alleged wrongful act or omission; merely showing a connection between negligence and injury is insufficient. In medical malpractice cases, the standard of care is ordinarily established by expert testimony from physicians who perform similar services in the community and are qualified by training and experience to do so.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tampa, Dr. Victor Lane ordered pelvic imaging for Marisa Cole after a workplace injury. Marisa later sued, alleging Dr. Lane negligently failed to ask whether she might be pregnant, but she testified that at the time she believed she was not pregnant and would have said "no" if anyone had asked.

Under the governing rule, which is the strongest argument for Dr. Lane?

Explanation. Liability for negligence requires proof that the alleged wrongful act or omission caused the injury. A mere connection is not enough. If the patient would have denied pregnancy even if asked, the omitted inquiry did not cause the imaging or the injury, so the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case.