Medical - Legal Malpractice
Medical malpractice or negligence cases against doctors, hospitals, HMO's, nursing homes and other healthcare providers can be costly and difficult to prove, and complex. Successful litigation improves the patient's right to safety and quality of care, while the effect of recent legislation may provide practical immunity for many whose conduct or product injured or killed patients.

Severe and arbitrary caps on non-economic damages hurt those who have been most severely injured. Also, since juries consistently award women more in noneconomic loss damages than men, any cap on these damages deprives women of a much greater proportion and amount of a jury award than men. 

The law changes constant constantly. Ms. Haas stays current on law and techniques with the aid of her membership, activities, and conferences with the Florida Justice Association.

Notable Cases
Botched Operation --  A young man was injured at work. During hip replacement surgery, a drill bit broke off, and the surgeon left the bit lodged in the young man's femur. The surgeon also removed the hip bone, but because he didn't have the right prosthesis easily accessible, failed to replace it. When the young man awoke, the surgeon didn't advise him that he had a drill bit lodged in his femur, or was missing a hip. The young man endured months of pain alone in his apartment. Finally he received an anonymous letter from a nurse present at the operation, which told him the truth. He found a new surgeon, and finally obtained an operation which corrected the mishaps of the first surgery. He also found a lawyer who sued the surgeon and the hospital. The case settled prior to trial.

Uncontrolled Systemic Sepsis -- After treatment by the private university hospital and physician, a patient experienced uncontrolled systemic sepsis, resulting in multi-organ system involvement including neurologic and brain injuries and impairment of mobility. The private university hospital claimed she was not their patient, but rather an indigent patient of the Public Health Trust -- until on eve of summary judgment hearing, they settled the case.
Surgical Errors
Emergency Room Errors
Failure to diagnose
Hospital-acquired Infection
Misdiagnosis
Birth Injuries
Anesthesia Errors
Medication Errors



Failure to Diagnose Breast Cancer -- A patient sued a hospital and physician for failing to diagnose her breast cancer.
The jury ruled against her. On appeal, the court reversed final judgment for defendants and remanded for new trial because the trial court could have confused the jury by giving defendant’s requested jury instructions on standard of care and failing to give plaintiff’s requested instructions on concurrent cause and aggravation of preexisting condition.

Post-surgery Staph Infection -- A 4 year old walked into a hospital for elective surgery; 6 days later she developed a staph infection, and 19 days later died of pus surrounding the heart. The trial court ruled that because none of plaintiff's expert witnesses were pediatric surgeons, they could not testify, and granted summary judgment for defendants. The appeals court  reversed and remanded for trial because of clear error in the trial court's exclusion of testimony by plaintiff's expert witnesses.

Post-verdict Jury Interview -- Plaintiff obtained verdict, defendant obtained order allowing post-verdict jury interview. Plaintiff sought and obtained certiorari. Appeals court quashed order allowing post-verdict jury interview.

Assertion of Peer Review Privilege -- The trial court entered an order denying plaintiff's motion to compel physicians to answer questions regarding informal meeting called by pathologist to discuss pathology findings with treating physicians. The appeals court granted certiorari and quashed the order, holding the medical review committee privilege did not apply.

Legal Malpractice -- In federal $15-20,000,000 claim from demise of Air Florida, summary judgment granted for law firm.Medical Malpractice -- final judgment for defendants reversed and remanded for new trial where trial court erred in giving defendant’s requested jury instructions on standard of care and failing to give plaintiff’s requested instructions on concurrent cause and aggravation of preexisting condition.