Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A.
  • Profile
    • Firm Overview
    • Key Cases
    • Clients
    • Community Involvement
    • Member USLaw
  • Practices
    • Leftsidemenu
      • Aviation
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction
      • Family Law
      • Healthcare
      • Mass Torts / Class Action
    • Rightsidemenu
      • Non-profit and Religious Institutions
      • Probate, Tax & Real Estate
      • Products Liability
      • Professional Liability
      • Retail
      • Transportation
  • Professionals
  • Places
  • Perspectives
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Careers
  • Search
  • Menu
News and Views

Atlanta Office Secures Dismissal in a Fraud Case Against Regional Hospital

November 29, 2021     Featured News, Firm Announcements, Firm News, Healthcare, Professional Liability by c.echeverria

ATLANTA – NOVEMBER 29, 2021 – Civil litigation defense firm, Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford P.A., is celebrating a case dismissal secured by Atlanta associate Jonathan Silverman after an owner of an assisted living facility filed several causes of action against a hospital.

In this case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a regional hospital for fraud, alleging the hospital materially altered medical records to reflect that a patient was discharged from the Plaintiff’s assisted living facility two days later than the actual discharge date. The Plaintiff was later investigated by the Office of the Attorney General of Florida and was charged with felony neglect of an elderly person and the assisted living facility was shut down by the State of Florida as a result of its treatment of this patient. The Plaintiff later alleged his damages for the purported Fraud perpetrated by the Hospital included his criminal conviction and the shutting down of his assisted living facility, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income.

The Plaintiff previously filed and dismissed two identical causes of action, the last one being filed while the Court was pending a ruling on the hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  After the Plaintiff filed a third cause of action, Wicker Smith’s attorneys moved for dismissal with prejudice arguing the instant action violated the two dismissal rule under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420 and the statute of limitations for Fraud. It was also argued to have failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted.

The Court quickly agreed, finding the Plaintiff’s two previous voluntary dismissals to operate as an adjudication on the merits, barring the instant action.  Despite alleging in his complaint that he did not learn of the purported fraud until 2017, in an effort to skirt the applicable four-year statute of limitations, the Court found that Plaintiff, through the exercise of due diligence, should have learned of the facts related to the purported fraud well before then.  As a result, the case in its entirety was dismissed with prejudice.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Google+
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share by Mail

News Details

Related ProfessionalsJonathan Silverman
PracticesHealthcare
OfficesAtlanta

Recent News

  • FLORIDA TORT REFORM: Major Changes, What to Know, and Why
  • WICKER SMITH PARTNERS PUBLISHED IN USLAW MAGAZINE WINTER 2023 EDITION
  • WICKER SMITH FEATURED IN ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE: 70 YEARS OF UNPARALLELED SERVICE
  • WICKER SMITH’S AVIATION PRACTICE TEAM HAS TRIAL COURT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING AFFIRMED BY THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
  • WICKER SMITH NAMED TO 2023 “BEST LAW FIRMS” LIST BY U.S. NEWS – BEST LAWYERS®
WS Stacked Logo White 01
  • Profile
  • Professionals
  • Places
  • Perspectives
  • Contact

Connect with Us   LinkedIn


Member USLaw   USLaw Member

© 2022 Wicker Smith | Attorney Advertising | All Rights Reserved. - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Sitemap
  • Careers
  • Contact
Nashville Partner Featured Speaker During Webinar Hosted by the Tennessee Society... Fort Lauderdale Office Celebrates Directed Verdict in an Employment Case
Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

OKLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings

How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, you cannot refuse them without impacting how our site functions. You can block or delete them by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visist to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds: