You may, as has been suggested before, make a complaint about the attorney with the Florida Bar, which is the body responsible for licensing, regulating, and disciplining lawyers. That doesn't get you any money, but if the Bar finds he violated the rules of professional practice it can punish him for it, up to disbarment from the practice of law.
If a plaintiff's claim is frivolous, you bring a motion in that case for the court to dismiss it for that reason and ask for any money sanctions then if you had to needlessly expend money because of the frivolous filing. The fact that the court dismissed it on summary judgment rather than because it was frivolous indicates the plaintiff's case, as stated in the pleadings, was not frivolous. The plaintiff lost because the judge determined that after reading the complaint and viewing all the all the available evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff it is clear to the judge that the plaintiff didn't have enough to prevail as a matter of law. That's different than the case being frivolous.
When the lawyer misstates the law, you tell the judge that, though in general the judge is going to find out about that anyway when the judge verifies what he/she was told by the parties/attorneys involved with the case.
Just because the plaintiff had prior injuries doesn't mean he's blocked from suing over new injuries sustained as a result of someone's negligence. It makes the case harder for the plaintiff to win because the plaintiff has to show that there were new injuries or that old injuries were aggravated as a result of the alleged negligence. It is not, however, impossible to do. With the right evidence it is possible to show that there are new injuries distinct from the old ones.
As far as dragging in people for depositions that you think aren't necessary for the case, the law allows pretty wide berth for the parties to discover relevant evidence favorable to their case. That can include things other than just eye witnesses accounts of the incident in dispute. Taking a deposition of a CEO of a small company is unlike taking a deposition of a CEO of a multi-billion dollar world wide enterprise with many thousands of employees. The former is much more likely to know everything that goes on in the business he or she runs than the latter. If you felt that the person being deposed could not possibly have knowledge of anything relevant to the case, you could have brought a motion with the court to object to that deposition. The person being deposed could have done that too.
Sometimes the lawyer will have a reason to think that the person has something relevant to provide and upon taking the deposition finds out there's not much useful from the testimony. That doesn't mean the lawyer violated any rule in taking the deposition. Lawyers in discovery and investigation of the case are going to look at anything they can think of to pursue that might be helpful to their case. Not everything they pursue yields something useful. But so long as the lawyer has a good faith belief that something relevant to the case may be uncovered the lawyer is not violating the rules.
If you want to see if there is any basis for suing the plaintiff's attorney consult a civil litigation attorney. But it may be that while the attorney's actions were aggressive in pursuing the case there wasn't any negligence or any intentional tort committed by the lawyer. So go into this with the understanding that while you feel strongly about what the attorney did, there may not be anything for you to sue the lawyer and win money damages. It sucks to get pulled into a lawsuit that ultimately fails. Spending time and money defending yourself is not fun. But our legal system allows a plaintiff to sue if he's got some basis for the suit, even if it ultimately turns out he/she doesn't have what it takes to win. Plaintiffs and their lawyers aren't punished by the law merely for bringing a case that turns out to be a loser.
How did the IRS treat Wesley Snipes for coming up with some taxation theories that failed in court?
If the Florida bar is anything like the California bar who allowed over 200 complaints against the attorney Tom Girard for decades before taking action. He actually stole money from his own clients but bar refused to act for decades and 200 complaints. Internal affairs for police almost always say " We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" no matter how egregious the case and even if courts later on find the cops guilty.
I am wondering if a bar that does not take the case seriously and refuses to take action against the attorney serve to poison a possible litigation against the bad attorney? Maybe something he could tell the jury about how he was " found innocent by the bar association" ?
Some doctors don't want to contradict another doctors maybe some attorney don't want to go against another attorney? I'm not sure.
So anyway, this attorney is suppose to be an officer of the court and not facilitate fraud to happen. They are not suppose to lie about the law to take preexisting injuries and get millions of dollars for them. That is called insurance fraud.
You talk about how they are allowed to bring a suit as long as they have some basis for it. What exactly is some basis? What is the required due diligence? Would a attorney and lawfirm who specializes in ambulance chasing(personal injury) be familiar with HIPPAA law? Would they perhaps be more familiar with HIPPAA law than say a non-personal injury attorney? Was it a coincidence that he would stop quoting the law right when it said that court actions are an exception to the protections? He already had sworn statement saying we know nothing about a trip hazard but he wanted to drag people like the CEO of companies we work with who did not even witness the event or and only been on the property like 5 years prior the incident to ask him about his education level and other properties in other states, what kind of car he drives, etc.. That is not just harassing people for the sake of harassing trying to stall for time. None of these question is going to win them a case but it might annoy people into offering a settlement so they will be left alone.
"There were new injuries or that old injuries were aggravated" How are you going to prove they were new injuries when you cover up that the injuries were preexisting by lying about the law and coverup up the records. He was suing for millions as if these were new crimpling injuries.
As far as aggravating an old injury. Well, take anyone with an injury such a broken arm, broken leg, cracked scull and almost nothing is going to aggravate that. A person casual bumping into someone will aggravate an injury that someone already has. Heck, just walking around is might aggravate that. Speed bump in the parking lot when you driver over in your car, imperfections in the road, car vibration from the engine, etc... If your eyes are dilated, then the ceiling lights will aggravate that. If you are diabetic, the sugar snacks at a supermarket will aggravate that. Maybe there are ear condition that background music might aggravate, etc... That seems like a catch-all where anyone with an medical issue can sue anyone they want to pay for it by saying it was aggravated. Since there are no cameras in the bathroom, just claim the floor was wet and it aggravated in injury and you basically have a license to steal. Maybe drag in the CEO, VP,CFO, and board members of Kroger for lengthy deposition if things go south. Ask them what they know about bathroom plumbing and how toilets work or if they have experience using a bathroom. I am sure the attorney must have a good reason for doing this and its not about harassing people at the top to be a pain and elicit a settlement.
Also, this idea of "aggravating an injury" or medical condition, anything and everything can aggravate something if you are really hurt to begin with.
This attorney tried to get MILLIONS with an M over something that may have never even happen. No one saw it. No one. When the case was obvious there was nothing there, he drags the CEO in and people who may have not been on the property for literally years asking them random silly question to take up the time and not slowing down on the people he wanted to drag into harassment.
Normally when you ask to deposition more people than what is normally allowed in a case, you might be getting closer and closer to the truth perhaps releaving more from each person you deposition. This was no information from the beginning and each person knew less and less about the alleged incident. Until he was deposition people who did not even remember being on the property because it had been literally years.
Should he has verified the injuries were real? The slip and fall actually happen? The people he deposition had some kind of knowledge of the situation at hand? Perhaps not intentionally misquoted the law to cover up the injuries. In fact, he asked US for his own client's medical records so that he could conceal what we did not already know. Is this how a officer of the court and someone who is suppose to uphold the law and not collaborate in fraud suppose to do? The attorney was just as fraudulent at the client who was a ex-con.
