Guzman v. Lazzari
In a medical malpractice case against a cardiologist for failing to prescribe an anticoagulant after mitral valve replacement, the trial court granted partial summary judgment striking the defendant's Fabre defense against the settling cardiac surgeon because the defendant had no same-specialty expert on the surgeon's standard of care, and excluded the cardiac surgeon's testimony as cumulative. The Fourth DCA reversed, holding that under these limited circumstances—where the negligence alleged against both providers was identical (failure to prescribe an anticoagulant)—no separate specialty expert was required to submit the Fabre nonparty to the jury, and that merely duplicative testimony from the surgeon could not be excluded as needlessly cumulative.
Key facts
- Plaintiff sued cardiologist for medical malpractice, alleging failure to prescribe anticoagulant after patient's mitral valve replacement; patient was also treated by cardiac surgeon who settled.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment striking defendant's Fabre defense against the settling surgeon for lack of same-specialty expert testimony on surgeon's standard of care, and excluded surgeon's testimony as cumulative.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a meaningful clarification for medical malpractice defense: a defendant need not retain a same-specialty expert on the Fabre nonparty's standard of care where the alleged breach is identical for both providers… — 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.