40 Fla. L. Weekly D1971a
[I]t would not have made a difference [if Dr. Vargas had known Monica had C1q nephropathy after the first positive urine test]. . . . There’s no known treatment for either of those two [types of C1q nephropathy]. People have attempted to treat it. Some people do better. Some patients do better than others, but there’s no acknowledged therapy for either of those [types of C1q nephropathy]. So even if you had known back in, you know, 2001 or you know some time after that, there would have been nothing that you would have done differently that would have caused any different outcome.
. . . .
If she had had C1q nephropathy, which is one of the two types that can cause chronic kidney insufficiency, yes. She would have probably still needed dialysis unfortunately and a transplant.
I. The denial of Dr. Vargas’s motion for a directed verdict
A. The trial court erroneously allowed the plaintiffs to present cumulative expert testimony in contravention of its pre-trial “one expert per specialty” rule.
B. The plaintiffs’ improper closing arguments unfairly prejudiced Dr. Vargas.
The purpose of closing argument is to help the jury understand the issues in a case by applying the evidence to the law applicable to the case. Attorneys should be afforded great latitude in presenting closing argument, but they must confine their argument to the facts and evidence presented to the jury and all logical deductions from the facts and evidence. Moreover, closing argument must not be used to inflame the minds and passions of the jurors so that their verdict reflects an emotional response rather than the logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law.
* * *