LEON N. GREENE, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH STONE AND ROBERT STONE, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1982-07-13
No. 81-2039
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and JORGENSON, JJ.
418 So. 2d 290 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1982) Positive Treatment
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. Leon Greene appealed from an order denying his motion to quash service of process in a medical malpractice action. The court held that Greene was never properly served with process and reversed, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him individually.


Holding

Dr. Greene was never properly served with process. Service on his nurse via corporate service on the professional association was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over Greene individually, and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant when individual service of process has not been made upon that defendant.

[2] Service of process upon a professional association does not constitute valid service upon an individual physician practicing through that association.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

“We agree that Dr. Greene was never properly served and, accordingly, reverse the order of the trial court denying Dr. Greene's motion to quash service of process.”

The court's holding that proper service was never effected on Greene individually

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

Plaintiffs Deborah and Robert Stone filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Greene and others. The initial complaint named Dr. Greene d/b/a a p…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Leon Greene appeals from an order of the trial court denying a motion to quash service of process. He alleges as error that individual service was never made upon him and, therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction. We agree and reverse.

Deborah and Robert Stone, plaintiffs below, filed an action against Dr. Greene and others alleging medical malpractice. The first complaint named Dr. Leon N. Greene, d/b/a Leon N. Greene, P.A. The summons and complaint were served by way of corporate service upon Dr. Greene’s nurse. The P.A. appeared and moved for summary judgment, alleging that the professional association had been formed after the alleged malpractice. The trial court granted summary judgment in an order that reads in part, “.. . that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment insofar as the professional association of Dr. Leon N. Greene is concerned be and the same is hereby granted but that the cause against Leon N. Greene, M.D., shall remain.”

Thereafter, the professional association filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s order and, as grounds for that motion, alleged that Dr. Greene had not been served as a party, that all the pleadings had been directed to the P.A. and that the P.A. had, in no way, responded on behalf of Leon N. Greene, M.D. The court granted the mo tion and entered an amended order striking “but that the cause against LEON N. GREENE, M.D. shall remain” from its prior order. Other defendants to this action (not parties to this appeal) filed a motion to clarify the trial court’s order and, in the alternative, to quash the service of process upon Leon N. Greene, M.D., individually. The trial court denied the motion to quash or clarify and required Dr. Greene to answer the complaint.

We agree that Dr. Greene was never properly served and, accordingly, reverse the order of the trial court denying Dr. Greene’s motion to quash service of process. Hauser v. Schiff, 341 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Appellee’s reliance, in its Supplemental Authority, on Garcia v. Dade County Public Health Trust, 369 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Argenbright v. J. M. Fields Co., 196 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) is misplaced. A statute of limitations question was not raised below or briefed or argued here.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Walsh v. Walsh, 262 So. 3d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
  • Aquila Steel Corp. v. Budd Fontana, 585 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …face, the affidavit of service returned by the California sheriff shows that the sheriff served Aquila Aluminum, not Aquila Steel. The failure to list Aquila Steel on the return of service means that Aquila Steel was not served. See Greene v. Stone, 418 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). By itself, the fact that the party actually served is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the party for whom service was intended does not support substituted service. See Mac Millan-Bloedel, Ltd., v. Canada, 391 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th…
  • Palazzola v. Hon. Carven D. Angel, 525 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
    …2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); see also, Local No. 666, Concrete Products and Material Yard Workers v. Dennis, 453 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (service on secretary of business manager insufficient to constitute service on union); Greene v. Stone, 418 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982) (service upon physician’s nurse insufficient). Since service of subpoenas is governed by the same rules as that of original process, service of the subpoena on Palazzola was invalid and of no legal effect, and the judgment of co…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw