RUFUS THAMES, M. D., PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE F. MELVIN, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1979-01-03
No. KK-282
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
365 So. 2d 813 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1979) Caution
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Dr. Thames challenges dismissal of a medical malpractice mediation claim for missing the 120-day deadline for final hearing. The court holds that the pretrial conference order implicitly extended the deadline, and remands for hearing on the merits rather than dismissing on a procedural technicality.


Holding

The court grants certiorari and holds that the pretrial conference order constitutes an implicit extension of the 120-day deadline under the circumstances, and the case must be remanded for hearing on the merits rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.


Headnotes

[1] A medical liability mediation claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if the final hearing is not held within 120 days of the complaint's filing and no extension…

[2] A pretrial conference order may be construed as an extension order for the purpose of calculating the 120-day deadline for a final hearing in a medical liability mediatio…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“if justice is to prevail, if substance is to be given greater weight than procedure, and if we adhere to the rule that where possible a claim should be heard and determined on the merits, we must rule in favor of Dr. Thames' contention”

Establishes the court's prioritization of substantive justice over technical procedural compliance in medical mediation disputes

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Melvin filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Thames on December 29, 1977. On April 13, 1978, Dr. Thames properly noticed Melvin's depositi…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Dr. Thames seeks review of an order dismissing Mr. Melvin’s medical liability mediation claim for lack of jurisdiction because the final hearing was not held within 120 days from the date of filing of the complaint and no extension order was entered by the Judicial Referee. We grant certiorari.

FACTS

Mr. Melvin filed his medical malpractice complaint on 29 December 1977. Dr. Thames timely answered the complaint.

On 13 April 1978, pursuant to notice, Mr. Melvin took the depositions of Dr. Thames and two witnesses. Although properly noticed by Dr. Thames, Mr. Melvin did not appear for the taking of his deposition on that date.

On 14 April, pursuant to the Judicial Referee’s notice, a pretrial conference was held. At the conference, the Judicial Referee was advised by counsel for the parties that Mr. Melvin had taken the depositions of Dr. Thames and two witnesses on the previous day but that Mr. Melvin had failed to appear for the taking of his deposition and that additional discovery was indicated and necessary. The panel was selected and the final hearing was scheduled for 13 June.

The depositions of Mr. Melvin and his brother were scheduled and taken on 25 May.

At a hearing scheduled by Mr. Melvin on 30 May, he contended the judicial referee and panel lacked jurisdiction to proceed because the final hearing was not held within 120 days from the date his complaint was filed. The Judicial Referee agreed and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Under the facts of this case, did the Judicial Referee err in dismissing the medical liability mediation claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Dr. Thames contends that the Judicial Referee’s pretrial conference order should be considered as an extension order under Rule 20.160(e) of the Florida Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure.

Mr. Melvin contends that because a final hearing was not held within 120 days and no extension order entered, Rule 20.190(b) of the Florida Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure mandates dismissal.

DECISION

Both contentions are correct. Under the facts of this case, however, if justice is to prevail, if substance is to be given greater weight than procedure, and if we adhere to the rule that where possible a claim should be heard and determined on the merits, we must rule in favor of Dr. Thames’ contention. Dr. Thames timely and properly scheduled the taking of Mr. Melvin’s deposition. Mr. Melvin did not appear. At the pretrial conference, this was brought to the Judicial Referee’s attention and counsel for both parties agreed that this deposition needed to be taken as well as other discovery accomplished before the final hearing. The date set for the final hearing was one agreed upon by counsel for the parties. Although 120 days expired on 28 April, Mr. Melvin did not object to the taking of his deposition and that of a witness on 25 May.

Granted that it would have been proper and preferable for a formal motion for extension to have been filed and for an order to have been entered formally extending the time, but under the circumstances here the Judicial Referee and counsel for the parties could have contemplated no less than that when the pretrial conference order was entered. We construe that order to extend the time.

JUDGMENT

Certiorari is granted. This case is remanded to the Judicial Referee for further appropriate action within the time permitted by the Florida Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Grossman v. Honorable Gordon A. Duncan, Jr., 371 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
    …78); Cole v. Wallace, 354 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The judicial referee’s reply to our order to show cause states that substantial compliance with the statutory procedures secured the panel’s continuing jurisdiction, citing Thames v. Melvin, 365 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The Thames opinion was limited strictly to its facts. In that case we held that a written order of the judicial referee, after a pre-trial conference held within the 120-day period, setting the final hearing for a day outside th…
  • Thames v. Melvin, 370 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
    …day period, however, a pre-trial conference was held and an order was entered setting the date for hearing outside the 120 days. We treated the order as an extension order and remanded the case to the panel for further proceedings. Thames v. Melvin, 365 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). . Section 768.44(3), Florida Statutes (1977), requires that a hearing be concluded within 10 months after the claim is filed.…
  • State ex rel. Luebell Wilson v. Smith, 369 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
    …all parties were present at the hearing of July 7, 1978, prior to the expiration of the 120-day period, and participated in the setting of the time schedule for the proceedings. Limond v. Llanio, 349 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Thames v. Melvin, 365 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw