Pete Molinelli, who serves as the Managing Partner in the QPWB Tampa office, and David Perez, a Partner based in the QPWB Miami office, provided defense for a skilled nursing facility accused of violating residents' rights and exhibiting negligence under Chapter 400 of the Florida Statutes.

In this case, an incident occurred during a Hoyer lift transfer where the resident's left toe became trapped, leading to the development of dry gangrene and eventual auto-amputation. It was alleged that the facility staff negligently wrapped the left foot, resulting in dry gangrene affecting both the inner and outer parts of the foot. During a videotaped deposition, the resident testified that she informed the staff about her toe being caught, but they dismissed her complaints and proceeded with the transfer, causing partial tearing of the toenail. Since the resident had passed away and was unable to testify at trial, the court permitted the playback of her deposition. While there was no dispute regarding the incident's occurrence, there was no documentation or recollection of how it happened, leaving no evidence or testimony to challenge the resident's account of events.

During the trial, the defense questioned the credibility of the resident's version of events by highlighting her medical records indicating dementia and inconsistencies in her deposition testimony, which were contradicted by other evidence presented. The resident's daughter, who filed the claim on behalf of the estate, testified that the incident occurred a week earlier than documented, and she observed the wrapped foot daily after the incident. She also stated that the resident had no complaints of pain or dementia prior to the incident. The defense countered the daughter's credibility by pointing out the absence of documented complaints, torn toenail, or pain in the resident's chart during the period between the alleged incident and the documented occurrence. They also emphasized the resident's medical records showing dementia and previous complaints of pain.

Regarding causation, the plaintiff's podiatry expert testified that the trauma from the incident caused the development of dry gangrene in the left great toe and subsequent auto-amputation. They further claimed that negligent wrapping of the entire left foot led to dry gangrene in both the inner and outer parts of the foot. During cross-examination, the defense elicited the expert's admission that the incident likely occurred on the documented date rather than the alleged date by the resident's daughter. The expert also acknowledged the lack of documentation regarding foot wrapping, absence of facility photos, and their limited knowledge about the wrapping process. Additionally, the expert admitted that vascular disease fell outside their area of expertise.

The defense's internal medicine expert testified that the incident and the development of dry gangrene in the left great toe and foot were separate events. They opined that the resident had a pre-existing vascular disease throughout her body, including the brain, heart, abdomen, and peripheral vascular system, making the development of dry gangrene unrelated to the incident. The expert deemed it medically impossible for wrapping to cause dry gangrene in specific parts of the foot and stated that dry gangrene would have affected the entire foot below the wrapping if wrapping played a role.

After a five-day trial, the plaintiff sought $1.2 million in damages. However, after deliberating for two hours and fourteen minutes, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict.