Professional Documents
Culture Documents
11/20/16
Professor Edwards
Identification
The malpractice suit I chose, The State of Florida vs. Dr Donald Edwards, which
took place on September 27, 2016 at the Orange County Courthouse in Downtown
Orlando. The case could have been settled but the prosecutors wanted real
consequences to be handed out in this particular case. I was satisfied with this case
proceeding because it was peculiar. I chose this particular case for my final project topic
because it was a simple malpractice suit on paper but after the proceeding the case
Research
Criminal case proceedings get the reputation of having the most electrifying and
interesting cases, and with that being said, the reputation is being rebutted right now.
For my research I chose to sit in on a civil case that turned criminal. A lot of civil cases
dont require a jury and end in mediation or with a settlement but seeing this malpractice
suit go to trial was unexpected and intriguing to me. As I previously stated, I initially
wanted a criminal case because I thought I would have more to dissect but this civil
case I learned that both parties have to agree on the final terms or its just left up to the
courts and jurors are a must to decide the fate of the case. As stated in our textbook, it
was a rare instance for civil cases to go to trial but the state of Florida Prosecutors office
wasnt necessarily pleased with the defendant or the circumstances pertaining to the
case, which I will divulge into later in the paper. I ultimately wanted to use this research
project to narrow down the field of law I wanted to study once I get into law school. Civil
law isn't as uneventful as it deemed to be. There are several different types of civil law
that I researched and found and caught my attention. Family law or criminal law were
my main focuses at the beginning of this project but once sitting in on this case
proceeding malpractice could be a route that I might be more interested in. Malpractice
suits happen everyday all over the nation and it is a field that isn't as publicized as
Observation
I arrived to the Orange County Courthouse 45 minutes prior to the time of the trial
I originally was going to attend, it was a criminal proceeding. I found the room and
waited outside for over an hour past the original time of the court time and no one
information desk for another proceeding that was starting at some time around 2:30 and
I happened upon the State of Florida vs Dr. Edwards. Without knowing it was
malpractice lawsuit I found my way into the courtroom in room 19B and sat in the very
back of the room. There was no jury present just a judge and the state prosecutor over
the case and Dr. Edwards lawyer, Dr. Edwards himself wasn't present for this
proceeding. The lawyer representing Dr. Edwards began his opening statements by
pointing out that the state wanted an unreasonable amount as settlement from the
doctor who was unemployed, elderly, and his entire life was falling apart as a result of
this case being opened. Dr. Edwards was 80 years old and ill and supposedly that is
why he wasn't able to be in court that day, he was hospitalized for an ailing sickness
that he couldn't make it to the courthouse. The State prosecutor was a hard hitting, no
nonsense woman who was more than ready to hold Dr. Edwards to the fire. As she
stated earlier that year the Department of Health had several complaints of malpractice
within Dr. Edwards facility and patients were concerned with the records and how things
were being run in the office. When the Department of Health went into the office with
search warrants no files could be found that were inserted into the system. There were
a lot of files that were found in Edwards handwriting but those weren't even complete.
When the Department of Health asked to see the rest of the files or what was inserted
the system by the staff and all the files had been deleted or incomplete as well.
Edwards office was filled with handwritten notes with patient information on it but no
where in the system could a complete file be found. The prosecution never outwardly
stated that the doctor infringed on patient privacy or was falsifying the records to give
patients prescriptions that they didn't need or that were even illegal to prescribe.
The State was very stern on what they wanted and their expectations as far as
Dr. Edwards they wanted to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. His lawyer
kept reiterating that he was 80 years old and couldn't make it to court today how was he
going to serve prison time for this offense. Dr. Edwards defense lawyer pushed for all
the charges to be thrown out and wanted a dismissal based on the prosecution finding
files with half written information but the State was strong that they would get a
conviction if they went to trial, the prosecuting team had an chip on their shoulder in a
sense because they couldn't lose at any angle the proceeding took on. If Edwards
wanted to pay restitution to the clients in his malpractice suit he would still be settling
and if they took the case to trial they guaranteed they had enough evidence to convict
him with a minimum sentence of three years. Towards the end of the proceeding
Prosecutor Fox and Dr. Edwards lawyer began to banter back and forth about possible
options for Edwards. Edwards lawyer waned no prison time and the State politely
declined, next the defense for Edwards threw out they maybe he could be eligible for a
departure and the prosecutor was open to that more than anything and she stated that
she was open to continue to the conversation before the court trial proceedings got
underway. Ultimately when leaving the room both parties had agreed to go ahead and
proceed with trial for this particular case. I happened to get into the elevator with the two
lawyers after the proceeding and they are very cordial with each other and were still
talking about case. Prosecutor Cox continued to reiterate to the defense lawyer that
their evidence that they both were aware about was much stronger than just settling,
she wanted Edwards to be prosecuted to the fullest extent but she was open to hearing
what other options the defense lawyer wanted to brainstorm. She also stated that she
wanted equal if not more sever of a consequence for his actions and that it isn't fair to
the judicial system to let him off because he is 80 years old, she felt grief for his
situation and that his health was deteriorating but she still was holding him responsible
Conclusion
Sitting in the courthouse you expect it to be like a movie, one small room with a
criminal murder case but the courthouse is relatively quiet. The courthouse has 20+
floors and several different courtrooms so it can be overwhelming to attend a court case
but everyone that works at the courthouse is very helpful and makes sure they give you
the best advice as far as sitting in on a case and the optimal times to get to the
courthouse. The second time I went to observe I arrived at the courthouse around
8:30am and just sat in on about twenty proceedings. For my particular case, once I
found the courtroom the judge that was residing over the case was very mild mannered
and just let the two parties go back and forth and if he was called on he would intervene
but other than that he gave each side advice from his point of view and guided mostly
the defense attorney for Dr. Edwards in a helpful direction. I feel in this type of
proceeding there isn't much for a judge to do other than her both sides out, especially
since they could not come to an agreement on restitution, a settlement, or even a guilty
plea. The judge seemed intrigued by the circumstances of the case and even went as
far to discuss which judge would most likely preside over the future trial, but his ultimate
judgement was for the two sides to continue to talk it out and move forward with trial.
The judge had to step in and decided that the case needed to proceed to trial where
both sides can plea their side and have a jury decide the fate of the doctor because the
The atmosphere between the two attorneys in the courtroom was intense and the
bantered back and forth with each other on several occasions, the prosecutor would cut
the defense attorney off and it would lead to situation where the judge was forced to
step in and order them to come to an agreement or take the case to trial. Sitting in on
this particular case was eye opening for me and I wish I could've followed it to trial but
the actual date for the pre-trial kept getting pushed back which proposed grave issues