Corbo v. Garcia’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Fassy v. Crowley · 635 So. 2d 945 - JB v. Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola · Mobley v. GILBERT E. HIRSCHBERG, PA · 681 So. 2d 711 - Liles v. PIA Medfield, Inc. · Lynn v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes, is whether the defendant is directly or vicariously liable under the medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes. Not every wrongful act by a health care provider amounts to medical malpractice. From the face of the complaint, it is apparent that appellants have sued ap-pellee for the failure to warn of a dangerous condition or properly maintain a piece of equipment, rather than for breach of some professional standard of care.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Here, even though [respondent] asserts that the negligence occurred prior to her treatment, the gravamen of her claim is based on the petitioners’ use of the equipment during [respondent’s] physical therapy treatment. The basis for [respondent’s] claim is that the petitioners negligently administered a treatment modality: Therefore, her injury occurred during medical treatment, and in order to prove her claim, she must prove that the petitioners did not properly maintain their electrical stimulation equipment, which falls within the standard of care involved in treating a patient with that equipment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Chapter 766] did not abolish ordinary negligence claims against those who may be in the business of providing medical care or services. If a plaintiff can successfully allege factual matters constituting ordinary negligence, he or she is not precluded from doing so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.