Jonathan Abel, a native Floridian, joined Conroy Simberg in 1988 and has been a partner since 1992. With more than 30 years of experience as a trial lawyer, Jonathan represents a wide variety of clients, ranging from hospitals and physicians to medical device manufacturers and automotive retailers. Jonathan is in charge of the firm's medical malpractice and healthcare divisions.
Admitted to Practice:
- Florida Bar, 1983
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
- U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
- University of Florida School of Law, Juris Doctorate, 1983
- University of Florida, Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, 1980
- Dade County Bar Association
- Broward County Bar Association
- Florida Defense Lawyers Association
- Defense Research Institute
- American Society for Health Care Risk Management
- International Association of Defense Counsel
- Claims and Litigation Management
Honors & Awards:
- Recognized as Top Lawyer by South Florida Legal Guide since 2004
- Inducted as a Fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America, a Trial Lawyers Honorary Society, 2011
- "Psychiatrists and Prevention of Patient Suicide: Legal Duties in Medical Negligence Claims." 1st Quarter Edition of Physician Insurer Magazine, 2011
- Annual Conroy Simberg Claims Management Seminar
- "Show Me the Data – EHRs Effect on Malpractice Claims," Crittenden Medical Insurance Conference in Miami, Florida, April 2015
- “Advanced Strategies for Avoiding and Managing Catastrophic Claims,” Crittenden Medical Insurance Conference in San Diego, CA, March 2014
- In the early 2000's, our client (CLIENT) designed and manufactured thin-film bioabsorbable implants used to separate tissue during certain surgical procedures. In 2004, that company sold the entire product line, including intellectual property, to a subsequent purchaser (SP), via an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). The APA provided for indemnification, and contained an arbitration clause. In 2008, a woman underwent gynecological surgery in a Miami hospital, and according to the surgical record two implants were used, one being identified as manufactured by SP, and one identified as manufactured by CLIENT. In 2011, the woman sued the hospital and both manufacturers, alleging that the implants did not properly absorb and caused significant complications. Based upon the lot number and the expiration date contained in the Complaint, CLIENT recognized immediately that the implant listed in the operative record was not their product. A demand for indemnification and defense of the action was demanded, which was refused. At one point an offer was made to assume the defense of CLIENT, but SP refused to appropriately reimburse CLIENT for all attorney fees incurred, offering only $16,000. Discovery included the testimony of the hospital's nursing IT representative, who explained how CLIENT was erroneously listed on the operative record. SP position remained unchanged. During the defense of the underlying litigation, CLIENT triggered the arbitration clause of the APA, and a two day binding arbitration was held in San Francisco. The three person panel concluded that CLIENT proved the implant in question was manufactured by SP, that CLIENT was entitled to a defense and indemnification, and awarded the sum of $383,000, an amount in excess of the fees and costs actually incurred by CLIENT's insurance carrier.
- A 45-year-old male goes to the hospital with headaches, dizziness and blurred vision. A CAT scan diagnosed hydrocephalous, and our client, a neurosurgeon, places a shunt. During the next two months follow-up CT scans are performed and read by two radiologists. Two months post-surgery a brain abscess is diagnosed, and an infectious disease physician is consulted. The brain abscess is surgically removed by the neurosurgeon, and any evidence of infection eliminated. Two months later the patient presents to his neurologist and although the area of the abscess shows no evidence of infection, the patient develops a mid-brain syndrome. The patient declines neurologically and dies approximately two years later.
A medical malpractice/wrongful death action is brought by the surviving spouse and two sons of the decedent against the neurosurgeon, two radiologists, and the infectious disease physician. It is alleged that the physician delayed in the diagnosis of the abscess, and the neurosurgeon was negligent in performing the removal of the abscess. The defendants contended that the abscess was timely diagnosed, and the abscess resolved and bore no relationship to the mid-brain syndrome which caused the patient’s death. Following a five week trial all defendants received a defense verdict in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.
- The plaintiff, age 31, went to our client’s hospital emergency room complaining of suicidal thoughts and provided a history of having overdosed on oxycontin, roxycodone and cocaine. The patient was noted to be at substantial risk for suicide and was admitted to the hospital’s psychiatric unit for involuntary commitment by the Baker Act. Later that day he was seen and evaluated by a staff psychiatrist who noted the patient was anxious and depressed and was maintained for observation. The patient was seen by the psychiatrist and staff at the hospital on several additional occasions and was discharged two days later by a residential drug treatment facility. At the time of his discharge he was found to have no acute depression and no suicidal ideation.After five days as a resident at the treatment facility, the patient eloped and hanged himself from a tree. An action was brought against the hospital, the attending psychiatrist and the residential facility alleging medical negligence in failing to prevent the patient’s death. The action was brought on behalf of the couple’s wife and the couples’ autistic son. A motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of the hospital contending that Florida law provides that due to the foreseeability of suicide, the healthcare provider does not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff to prevent such suicide. On the morning the summary judgment was scheduled to be heard, the plaintiffs accepted a nominal amount in a confidential settlement from the hospital and the attending physician.
- A seven-passenger SUV with nine passengers was traveling southbound on Interstate 75 in Bradenton, Florida when the left rear tire sustained a tread separation, in response to which the driver, according to defense accident reconstruction, over-corrected and caused the vehicle to roll multiple times. The accident resulted in the death of a pregnant 38-year-old woman (whose five children were in the vehicle), the death of the driver’s 14-year-old son and caused the incomplete quadriplegia of a 13-year-old girl.
An action was brought against the vehicle manufacturer, tire manufacturer, and automotive retailer, who was this firm’s client. It was alleged that the placement of two new tires on the front, as opposed to the rear of the vehicle was a proximate cause of the accident. Defense accident reconstruction and analysis determined that due to the excessive driver input, the accident was likely to have occurred regardless of whether the tire that failed was on the rear verses the front of the vehicle. A confidential settlement was reached with all parties.