Cantore v. West Boca Medical Center, Inc.
In a medical malpractice case arising from a delayed hospital transfer that resulted in permanent brain damage, the Florida Supreme Court held that a subsequent treating physician's deposition testimony about how he would have treated the patient had she arrived earlier was irrelevant and inadmissible under Saunders v. Dickens. The Court found the error harmful because defense counsel used the testimony in burden-shifting closing arguments and the jury twice asked to review it, and quashed the Fourth District's affirmance, remanding for a new trial. The Court also held the trial court erred in directing a verdict on Good Samaritan Act immunity where evidence conflicted on whether the patient was stabilized.
Key facts
- Plaintiff Cantore suffered permanent brain damage following a delayed hospital transfer from West Boca Medical Center; the trial court admitted deposition testimony from a subsequent treating physician about how he would have treated the patient had she arrived earlier.
- The trial court directed a verdict in favor of West Boca on Good Samaritan Act immunity despite conflicting evidence on whether the patient was stabilized.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision significantly extends and enforces Saunders v. Dickens, confirming that its bar on subsequent-treating-physician 'what-if' testimony is an admissibility rule, not merely a limit on conclusive effect, and… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.