JOHN INSINGA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MILDRED INSINGA, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE LABELLA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, HUMANA, INC., D/B/A BISCAYNE MEDICAL CENTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
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.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and held that Florida law recognizes a corporate negligence doctrine requiring hospitals to vet and retain competent physicians with staff privileges, even when those physicians are independent practitioners.
Hospitals owe a duty to patients to select and retain competent physicians who provide in-house care through hospital staff privileges, even though such physicians are independent practitioners.
[1] Hospitals owe a duty to select and retain competent physicians who provide in-house patient care through staff privileges, even when such physicians are independent pract…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMildred Insinga died, and her estate sued hospital and physician defendants for negligence. The case involved whether a hospital could be held liable …
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 Staff Privileges cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The facts of this case are set out in the original panel decision certifying a question of law to the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Rule 9.150, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Insinga v. LaBella, et al., 845 F. 2d 249 (11th Cir.1988). We certified the following question:
Whether Florida law recognizes the corporate negligence doctrine and whether it would apply under the facts of this case.
The Florida Supreme Court rephrased the certified question as follows:
Whether prior to October 1, 1985 (the effective date of section 768.60, Florida Statutes (1985)), hospitals owed a duty to their patients to select and retain competent physicians who, although they are independent practitioners, would be providing in-house patient care through their hospital staff privileges.
That court then answered the restated question in the affirmative. Insinga v. LaBella, 543 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1989). Since the district court expressed a view contrary to that of the Florida Supreme Court, its judgment must be reversed.
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Insinga v. LaBELLA, 543 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1989)
- Insinga v. LaBELLA, 845 F.2d 249 (11th Cir. 1988)