HERBERT H. DAVIS, M.D., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
RUSH K. ACTON, M.D., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Dr. Davis filed a third-party complaint against consulting physician Dr. Acton seeking indemnity and contribution for alleged medical malpractice. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to submit the claim to medical mediation as required by Florida law. The appellate court affirmed, holding that third-party medical malpractice claims must comply with the statutory mediation requirement before filing in court.
The court held that third-party claims for medical malpractice must be submitted to medical mediation before filing in court. The statute's language requiring submission of claims based on alleged physician negligence applies to third-party complaints where the gravamen is professional negligence, even when seeking indemnity or contribution.
[1] A claim for indemnity or contribution arising from allegations of professional negligence by a medical physician must first be submitted to a medical liability mediation…
[2] The Florida Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1975 requires that any claim for damages due to alleged malpractice by a medical physician be submitted to a mediation panel…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Any person or his representative claiming damages by reason of injury, death, or monetary loss on account of alleged malpractice by any medical or osteopathic physician, podiatrist, hospital, or health maintenance organization against whom he believes there is a reasonable basis for a claim shall submit such claim to an appropriate medical liability mediation panel before that claim may be filed in any court of this state.”
The controlling statutory language requiring pre-suit mediation of medical malpractice claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarion Forsyth brought a wrongful death and medical malpractice action against Dr. Davis for allegedly negligent treatment of her deceased husband. He…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Professional Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The issue raised by this appellate proceeding is whether the trial court properly dismissed the third-party civil action complaint filed by one medical physician against another medical physician on the basis that the claim must first be submitted to medical mediation pursuant to Section 768.44(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1975). We hereby affirm the trial court order dismissing the third party complaint.
The main action was brought by Marion M. Forsyth, individually and as personal representative of the estate of her husband William P. Forsyth, against Herbert H. Davis, M.D. for wrongful death and damages based upon allegations of medical malpractice. Mrs. Forsyth’s claim had previously been submitted to medical mediation pursuant to Section 768.44(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1975), and the panel found Dr. Davis actionably negligent.
Dr. Davis filed a third-party complaint against Rush K. Acton, M.D. a consulting physician on the Forsyth case, alleging that said physician negligently treated the deceased in regard to his medical specialty, orthopedics; that Dr. Davis was entitled to indemnity by and contribution from Dr. Acton, should Dr. Davis ultimately be found negligent and liable in the circuit court main action.
The pertinent part of the Florida Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1975, Section 768.44(l)(a), reads: “Any person or his representative claiming damages by reason of injury, death, • or monetary loss on account of alleged malpractice by any medical or osteopathic physician, podiatrist, hospital, or health maintenance organization against whom he believes there is a reasonable basis for a claim shall submit such claim to an appropriate medical liability mediation panel before that claim may be filed in any court of this state.”
By the language of the statute, the instant claim against Dr. Acton by the appellant must be submitted to a medical liability mediation panel. It is to be emphasized that the gravamen of the third-party action is predicated upon the allegation of professional negligence by a practicing physician, and appellant’s claims for indemnity and contribution arise out of that underlying claim of professional negligence. The third-party civil complaint was properly dismissed. See Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The point raised by appellee’s cross-appeal has been considered and found to be without merit.
The order appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Va. Ins. Reciprocal v. Frank C. Walker, Jr., M.D., 765 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…rty defendant and third party plaintiff. We stress that the mediation required here is not the mediation of the contribution claim but is instead the mediation required of the issue of actionable negligence. Id. at 599-600. See also Davis v. Acton, 373 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Here, as in Walt Disney World, the point of the presuit screening procedure would not be to resolve an issue of contribution, but rather to resolve the underlying claim of medical malpractice. The Fourth District reversed its co…