Preview
Filing # 126163875 E-Filed 05/04/2021 05:25:58 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CASE NO: 2020CA001350XXXXXX
BRENDA SNOW,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND
CLINICS, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH SHANDS
HOSPITAL, A Florida Non-Profit Corporation
and UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF
TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE
CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate,
Defendant(s).
/
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES D/B/A
UF HEALTH EYE CENTER’S APRIL 16, 2021
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff hereby replies to the affirmative defenses interposed by the Defendant,
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER, on
April 16, 2021 and by way of reply states as follows:
1. As to the first affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that BRENDA
SNOW herself was guilty of negligence which was the sole or contributing cause of the injuries
alleged and the damages sought. Based on information and belief, Ms. Snow failed to follow up
for additional care when indicated. The negligence of Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate, if
any, should be compared, and apportioned in accordance with the principles of comparative
negligence and the laws of contribution.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
"2020 CA 001350" 126163875 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 05/05/2021 08:15:00 AM EDT2. As to the second affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are
entitled to an apportionment of damages and a distribution of comparative fault in accordance with
the principles and provisions of Florida Statute 768.81.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
3. As to the third affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that the injuries
alleged by Plaintiff are a result of acts or omissions by other persons, corporations, or professional
associations, other than this Defendant, for which this Defendant is not responsible.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
Pursuant to Fabre v. Marin and Wells vy. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical
Center, Inc., the Defendant failed to identify specific facts about why it alleges that
each defendant was negligent. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations
and demands strict proof thereof.
4, As to the fourth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are
entitled to rely upon the principles and doctrines set forth in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2"4 1182 (Fla.
1993) and its progeny. This Defendant is aware that Plaintiff has filed suit against other parties or
entities for negligence for the same injuries alleged to be caused by this Defendant. Should these
other parties or entities settle out of this case, this Defendant would seek to have those settling
parties listed on the verdict form in accordance with the principles set forth in Fabre.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
Pursuant to Fabre v. Marin and Wells vy. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical
Center, Inc., the Defendant failed to identify specific facts about why it alleges that
each defendant was negligent. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations
and demand strict proof thereof.
5. As to the fifth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are entitled
to a set-off for any and all collateral source payments made or to be made in the future in
accordance with the applicable Florida Statutes.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
6. As to the sixth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are
entitled to the provisions of Florida Statute 768.78 in the event of an award of any future economic
losses exceeding $250,000.00 in this case.
2REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
7. As to the seventh affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that the alleged
negligence of the Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF
HEALTH EYE CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate was not the proximate cause of any
injury to the Plaintiff pursuant to Gooding v. University Hospital, 445 So.2d 1015 (1984) and its
progeny.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
8. As to the eighth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that any jury
award to Plaintiff of non-economic damages is limited by the provisions of Florida Statute
766.118.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
9. As to the ninth affirmative defense, Defendant would assert that it is a State entity
and is afforded any and all sovereign immunity protections of section 768.28, Florida Statutes.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
10. As to the tenth affirmative defense, this Defendant adopts and incorporate by
reference any affirmative defenses raised by any Co-Defendant.
REPLY: To the extent it is pled, Plaintiffs deny the allegations and demand strict
proof thereof.
11. As to the eleventh affirmative defense, this Defendant asserts that they are entitled
to all the benefits of the provisions of Chapter 766 and Chapter 768 of the Florida Statutes as
specifically plead herein.
REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal
and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike.
3To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof
thereof.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve
to all Counsel on the attached list, this 4th day of May, 2021.
4s/Andrea A. Lewis
Andrea A. Lewis, Esquire
Florida Bar No.: 85331
Attorney Email: alewis@searcylaw.com
Primary E-Mail: lewisteam@searcylaw.com
Secondary E-Mail: mweschrek@searcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9402
Attorney for Plaintiffs
COUNSEL LIST
Andrea A. Lewis, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 85331
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9441
Primary E-Mail: lewisteam@searcylaw.com
Attorney Email: alewis@searcylaw.com
Secondary Email: mweschrek@searcylaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff, BRENDA SNOW
Francis E. Pierce, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0270921
Mateer Harbert, P.A.
225 East Robinson Street, Suite 600
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407)425-9044
Fax: (407)425-9044
Primary Email: litpleadings@mateerharbert.com
Secondary Email: mdavis@mateerharbert.com
Secondary Email: ckozimor@mateerharbert.com
Attorneys for SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC.
4Rafael E. Martinez, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0243248
Wilbert R. Vancol. Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0093132
McEwan, Martinez, Dukes & Hall, P.A.
Post Office Box 753
Orlando, FL 32802-0753
Phone: (407)423-8571
Fax: (407)423-8637
Primary Email: NOS@mmdorl.com
Primary Email: wvancol@mmdorl.com
Primary Email: mcarter@mmdorl.com
Attorney Email: rmartinez@mmdorl.com
Secondary Email: glichtenberger@mmdorl.com
Secondary Email: _dmcalpin@mmdorl.com
Attorneys for Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF
HEALTH EYE CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate
Christine R. Davis, Esquire
Florida Bar No: 569372
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Phone: (850)224-1585
Email: cdavis@carltonfields.com
Email: sdouglas@ecarltonfields.com
Appellate Counsel and Co-Counsel for Defendants, SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND
CLINICS, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH SHANDS HOSPITAL AND UNVERSITY OF FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER
Preview
Filing # 126163875 E-Filed 05/04/2021 05:25:58 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO: 2020CA001350XXXXXX BRENDA SNOW, Plaintiff(s), vs. SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH SHANDS HOSPITAL, A Florida Non-Profit Corporation and UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate, Defendant(s). / PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES D/B/A UF HEALTH EYE CENTER’S APRIL 16, 2021 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff hereby replies to the affirmative defenses interposed by the Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER, on April 16, 2021 and by way of reply states as follows: 1. As to the first affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that BRENDA SNOW herself was guilty of negligence which was the sole or contributing cause of the injuries alleged and the damages sought. Based on information and belief, Ms. Snow failed to follow up for additional care when indicated. The negligence of Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate, if any, should be compared, and apportioned in accordance with the principles of comparative negligence and the laws of contribution. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. "2020 CA 001350" 126163875 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 05/05/2021 08:15:00 AM EDT2. As to the second affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are entitled to an apportionment of damages and a distribution of comparative fault in accordance with the principles and provisions of Florida Statute 768.81. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 3. As to the third affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that the injuries alleged by Plaintiff are a result of acts or omissions by other persons, corporations, or professional associations, other than this Defendant, for which this Defendant is not responsible. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. Pursuant to Fabre v. Marin and Wells vy. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc., the Defendant failed to identify specific facts about why it alleges that each defendant was negligent. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demands strict proof thereof. 4, As to the fourth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are entitled to rely upon the principles and doctrines set forth in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2"4 1182 (Fla. 1993) and its progeny. This Defendant is aware that Plaintiff has filed suit against other parties or entities for negligence for the same injuries alleged to be caused by this Defendant. Should these other parties or entities settle out of this case, this Defendant would seek to have those settling parties listed on the verdict form in accordance with the principles set forth in Fabre. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. Pursuant to Fabre v. Marin and Wells vy. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc., the Defendant failed to identify specific facts about why it alleges that each defendant was negligent. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 5. As to the fifth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are entitled to a set-off for any and all collateral source payments made or to be made in the future in accordance with the applicable Florida Statutes. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 6. As to the sixth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that they are entitled to the provisions of Florida Statute 768.78 in the event of an award of any future economic losses exceeding $250,000.00 in this case. 2REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 7. As to the seventh affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that the alleged negligence of the Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate was not the proximate cause of any injury to the Plaintiff pursuant to Gooding v. University Hospital, 445 So.2d 1015 (1984) and its progeny. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 8. As to the eighth affirmative defense, this Defendant would assert that any jury award to Plaintiff of non-economic damages is limited by the provisions of Florida Statute 766.118. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 9. As to the ninth affirmative defense, Defendant would assert that it is a State entity and is afforded any and all sovereign immunity protections of section 768.28, Florida Statutes. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 10. As to the tenth affirmative defense, this Defendant adopts and incorporate by reference any affirmative defenses raised by any Co-Defendant. REPLY: To the extent it is pled, Plaintiffs deny the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. 11. As to the eleventh affirmative defense, this Defendant asserts that they are entitled to all the benefits of the provisions of Chapter 766 and Chapter 768 of the Florida Statutes as specifically plead herein. REPLY: This defense is a pure conclusion of law with no supportive facts. The legal and factual insufficiency of this affirmative defense is the subject of a motion to strike. 3To the extent it is pled, Plaintiff denies the allegations and demand strict proof thereof. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 4th day of May, 2021. 4s/Andrea A. Lewis Andrea A. Lewis, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 85331 Attorney Email: alewis@searcylaw.com Primary E-Mail: lewisteam@searcylaw.com Secondary E-Mail: mweschrek@searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9402 Attorney for Plaintiffs COUNSEL LIST Andrea A. Lewis, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 85331 Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9441 Primary E-Mail: lewisteam@searcylaw.com Attorney Email: alewis@searcylaw.com Secondary Email: mweschrek@searcylaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff, BRENDA SNOW Francis E. Pierce, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 0270921 Mateer Harbert, P.A. 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407)425-9044 Fax: (407)425-9044 Primary Email: litpleadings@mateerharbert.com Secondary Email: mdavis@mateerharbert.com Secondary Email: ckozimor@mateerharbert.com Attorneys for SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. 4Rafael E. Martinez, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0243248 Wilbert R. Vancol. Esq. Florida Bar No. 0093132 McEwan, Martinez, Dukes & Hall, P.A. Post Office Box 753 Orlando, FL 32802-0753 Phone: (407)423-8571 Fax: (407)423-8637 Primary Email: NOS@mmdorl.com Primary Email: wvancol@mmdorl.com Primary Email: mcarter@mmdorl.com Attorney Email: rmartinez@mmdorl.com Secondary Email: glichtenberger@mmdorl.com Secondary Email: _dmcalpin@mmdorl.com Attorneys for Defendant, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER, a Florida Public Body Corporate Christine R. Davis, Esquire Florida Bar No: 569372 CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850)224-1585 Email: cdavis@carltonfields.com Email: sdouglas@ecarltonfields.com Appellate Counsel and Co-Counsel for Defendants, SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH SHANDS HOSPITAL AND UNVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER