MICHELLE FREEMAN AND MICHAEL FREEMAN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
HUMANA, INC., D/B/A BISCAYNE MEDICAL CENTER, DRS. JOSELL & TEPERSON, P.A., DAVID TEPERSON, M.D., PAUL HINENBURG, M.D., ALAN LICHSTRAHL, M.D., DONALD D. SHEFFEL, M.D., DONALD GUILIANTI, M.D., D/B/A NEUROSURGICAL CONSULTANTS, ROBERT GOODKIN, M.D., AND SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT PHYSICIANS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE TRUST, 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.
Appellants Michelle and Michael Freeman appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding the trial court properly sanctioned the plaintiffs' pattern of noncompliance with multiple discovery orders spanning over two years.
The trial court properly dismissed the action. The appellants' repeated and willful failure to comply with four discovery orders spanning over two years constituted grounds for the drastic sanction of dismissal.
[1] A trial court may dismiss a medical malpractice action as a sanction for a party's failure to obey discovery orders.
[2] A trial court's judgment dismissing an action for failure to comply with discovery orders will be affirmed if supported by competent and substantial evidence.
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“beginning in October 1983 and continuing through January 1986, there were four or more orders on discovery motions, directed to plaintiffs, of which they had notice, and none of which had been complied with by January 7, 1986, when the case was finally dismissed”
Establishes the pattern and duration of non-compliance that justified dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action in May 1982 against Humana, Inc. and various physicians. Summary judgment was granted for all defendants…
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 Sanctions For Discovery Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is brought from an order entered on a motion for sanctions which dismissed a medical malpractice action for failure to obey discovery orders.
Appellants’ counsel, the ninth in a series of attorneys or law firms whose services were sought by appellants in the course of this malpractice action, makes a spirited entreaty that the failure of his clients to comply with the court’s orders was not willful or contumacious such as would warrant the drastic action of dismissal. We have examined the record and find competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court’s judgment.
Plaintiffs/appellants instituted the instant action in May 1982. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants except Humana, Inc. in June 1983. The summary judgment was set aside on September 12, 1983 to allow plaintiffs further discovery. On October 31, 1983, the defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to answer interrogatories and to produce documents. The court granted the motion, giving plaintiffs twenty days to comply. On June 17, 1985, the defendants requested that certain notebooks be produced. On October 14, 1985, defendants filed a motion to compel production of the notebooks. The motion was granted on December 17, and plaintiffs were given twenty days to comply with the order. In addition, on November 6, 1985, the court entered an order compelling plaintiff Michelle Freeman to answer expert witness interrogatories propounded by defendants; she failed to answer the interrogatories.
On December 9, defendant Humana filed a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees. The other named defendants had previously filed two motions to compel and for sanctions for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders. Thus, beginning in October 1983 and continuing through January 1986, there were four or ders on discovery motions, directed to plaintiffs, of which they had notice, and none of which had been complied with by January 7, 1986, when the case was finally dismissed. The patient, but by now exasperated, trial court justifiably brought an end to the proceedings. See A.H. Robins Co. v. Devereaux, 415 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) review denied, 426 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1983); Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vasiliki Zafirakopoulous v. S. Miami Int'l Crabhouse Corp., 513 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…usiness in Greece is an insufficient basis for the sanction of dismissal with prejudice: willful disregard or continued indifference to a court order is necessary before the most severe sanction will be sustained. See, e.g., Freeman v. Humana, Inc., 501 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (sanction of dismissal warranted where ninth in series of party’s law firms failed to comply with any of four outstanding discovery orders despite notice), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1987); Morales v. Perez, 445 So. 2d 393 (…
-
Stimpson Computing Scale Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Francis X. Knuck, 508 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…and its counsel appropriate where potential members of plaintiff class were solicited for exclusion requests by defendant in violation of court order restricting defendant’s contacts with class members to five depositions); Freeman v. Humana, Inc., 501 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (sanction of dismissal warranted where ninth in series of party’s law firms failed to comply with any of four outstanding discovery orders despite notice). Our grant of the writ of prohibition and our reversal of the order of the…
-
Pilkington PLC v. Metro Corp., 526 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…disregard or gross indifference to the court’s order. See Zafirakopoulous, 513 So. 2d at 1355 (“inability to comply with a single discovery order due to geographical and business constraints” does not warrant dismissal). Cf. Freeman v. Humana, Inc., 501 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (where party failed to comply with four discovery orders dismissal warranted), review denied, 511 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1987); Campagna Constr. Co. v. Riverview Condominium Corp., 467 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“continued and willfu…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- A. H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Devereaux, 415 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)