BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ANDREW WILKERSON, M.D. AND AARON HASIUK, M.D., APPELLANTS,
v.
KIM OANG THI LY AND HA NGUYEN, APPELLEES
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.
Bayfront Medical Center and physicians appealed a trial court's ruling that section 768.56(1), Florida Statutes—which allows prevailing defendants to recover attorney's fees from unsuccessful medical malpractice plaintiffs—violates the Florida Constitution's equal protection clause. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute is constitutional and does not violate equal protection rights.
Section 768.56(1) is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection clause. The statute bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective—deterring baseless medical malpractice litigation—and an exemption for indigent litigants protects rather than violates their access to courts.
[1] A statute requiring unsuccessful medical malpractice plaintiffs who are not indigent to pay attorney's fees incurred by prevailing defendants does not violate the equal p…
[2] A statute requiring unsuccessful medical malpractice plaintiffs who are not indigent to pay attorney's fees incurred by prevailing defendants does not deny equal access t…
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“section 768.56(1) of the Florida Statutes is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the Florida Constitution by requiring only those unsuccessful plaintiffs who are not indigent to pay attorney's fees incurred by prevailing defendants in medical malpractice actions”
This quote captures the trial court's reasoning for striking the attorney's fees demand, which the appellate court ultimately rejected.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBayfront Medical Center and two physicians filed a motion to tax costs and attorney's fees against unsuccessful medical malpractice plaintiffs under s…
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 Equal Protection Clause (Florida Constitution) cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., Andrew Wilkerson, M.D., and Aaron Hasiuk, M.D., appeal a judgment on attorney's fees and costs which declared section 768.56(1), Florida Statutes (1983), violated the Florida Constitution. We reverse.
Appellants filed a motion for taxation of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.56(1). Appellees filed a motion to strike the demand for attorney’s fees on the ground that section 768.56(1) was unconstitutional. During the hearing on the motions, appellees argued that the section violates the equal protection clauses of both the Florida and United States Constitution, and that the section discriminates against that class of unsuccessful medical malpractice claimants who are solvent because it has a “chilling effect” upon their access to the courts. Appellants argued that there was a rational purpose and compelling state interest in the attorney fee provision because it dissuaded baseless litigation.
The court granted appellees’ motion to strike demand for attorney’s fees. In the judgment, the court stated that although the $14,077.00 attorney’s fee requested by appellants was reasonable, section 768.56(1) of the Florida Statutes is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the Florida Constitution by requiring only those unsuccessful plaintiffs who are not indigent to pay attorney’s fees incurred by prevailing defendants in medical malpractice actions. Further, the court ruled that section 768.56(1) also violates the Florida Constitution because it denies equal access to the court by discriminating against those medical malpractice claimants who are not insolvent or poverty stricken by creating a “chilling effect” upon their right to seek redress for their injuries. The court denied appellants’ motion for taxation of attorney’s fees and granted appellees’ motion to strike demand for attorney’s fees.
Other district courts of appeal have considered the constitutionality of section 768.-56 and found it to be constitutional. Frankowitz v. Propst, 464 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Davis v. North Shore Hospital, 452 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Young v. Altenhaus, 448 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Karlin v. Denson, 447 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Pohlman v. Mathews, 440 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. Von Stetina, 436 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The legislature has the power to exempt indigent litigants from the ambit of the statute. Such an exemption does not affect a solvent litigant’s right of access to the court, but rather, protects an indigent party’s right of access to the courts. Therefore, the statute does bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective, and does not violate the right to equal protection. Id. at 1030 (citing Hunter v. Flowers, 43 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla.1949)).
Reversed and remanded with instructions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)…on2 by “chilling" litigation that would otherwise be instituted by victims of medical malpractice. Eách district court of appeal that has addressed this issue has upheld the constitutionality of the statute. See Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. v. Ly, 465 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Frankowitz v. Propst, 464 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Davis v. North Shore Hospital, 452 So. 2d 937 Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Young v. Altenhaus, 448 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Pohl-man v. Mathews, 440 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA…
-
Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. DeBERRY, 639 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1990). Additionally, the statute protects indigent individuals by insuring their access to the courts by exempting them from attorney’s fee judgments. See, e.g., Bayfront Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Kim Oang Thi Ly, 465 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that Dr. Klomp and the clinic were not “insolvent” for purposes of section 768.56. Ames v. Lindsey, 551 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). [*58] The last issue that need be addressed i…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. von Stetina, 436 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Hunter v. Flowers, 43 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1949)
- Jerrold Young, M.D. v. Fern Altenhaus, 448 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Glenn L. Pohlman, M.D. v. Mathews, 440 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Stanley Frankowitz, D.O. v. Propst, 464 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Estine Davis v. N. Shore Hosp., 452 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Karlin v. Denson, 447 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)