ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD E. SANCHIONI, JR., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS, AND NEXT FRIENDS, RICHARD E. SANCHIONI AND GLADYS SANCHIONI; RICHARD E. SANCHIONI, INDIVIDUALLY; AND GLADYS SANCHIONI, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
St. Mary's Hospital appeals a jury verdict awarding $5.2 million to a minor injured due to the hospital's negligence prior to birth, plus $1.5 million to the parents. The appellate court affirms the child's award but reduces the parents' award as excessive and remands for recalculation of attorney's fees due to computational errors.
The court affirmed the $5.2 million award to the minor plaintiff as not excessive, but reversed the $1.5 million parental award as excessive and remanded for the parents to file a remittitur reducing their combined award to $1,296,649.75 or alternatively ordered a new trial on parental damages. The court remanded the attorney's fees award for recalculation due to computational errors and clarification of hours, hourly rates, and multiplier calculations.
[1] A jury award for a minor plaintiff's injuries will be affirmed if no reversible error is found.
[2] Appellate courts may find jury awards to parents for their child's injuries to be excessive and order a remittitur or a new trial on damages.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“we find no reversible error in the award to the minor plaintiff of $5,200,000, and affirm it”
Establishes that the appellate court upheld the jury's award to the injured child as reasonable and not excessive.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was injured due to negligence by St. Mary's Hospital just prior to birth. A jury awarded $5,200,000 to the minor plaintiff, $1,000,000 to the …
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 Lodestar Figure cases and more on FLexlaw
[*618] PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises out of the defendant’s negligence and the resulting injury to a child just prior to birth. Having duly considered all of appellant’s arguments, we find no reversible error in the award to the minor plaintiff of $5,200,000, and affirm it. We conclude the jury award of $1,000,000 to the child’s mother and $500,000 to his father was excessive, and remand with direction to the trial court to order the parents to file a remittitur in the amount of $203,350.25, so that the combined amount of the award to the parents will be $1,296,-649.75., or, upon failure thereof, to order a new trial on the subject of damages to the parents.
We think also that the trial court made one or more computational and typographical errors in calculating its award of $1,264,000 in attorney’s fees. We are unable to determine whether 1600 was in fact the reasonable number of hours expended that the trial court meant to recognize. We likewise cannot tell whether the court intended the hourly rate to be $300 and the multiplier to be 3.5, as it stated in the order, or the hourly rate to be $350 and the multiplier to be 3, which would produce the same mathematical result. In contingent fee cases the lodestar figure calculated by the court may be enhanced by a contingency risk multiplier within the range of 1.5 to 3 only. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we remand for correction.
On remand, when recalculating attorney’s fees, the trial court must bear in mind the limits on the multiplier. Because there has been no cross appeal, the attorney’s fees so calculated may be no greater in amount than the previous attorney’s fee award.
We reject all other arguments raised by appellant respecting attorney’s fees. Having studied the supplemental briefs requested of the parties on the point respecting attorney’s fees raised by appellant in a main brief footnote, we are satis-tied that that point was not preserved for appeal.
HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for rehearing/clarification except to direct that the parents’ remittitur shall affect their individual awards proportionately.
HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Millicent Russell and The Estate of Richard Russell, 567 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ts that the new judgment is barred by application of the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment and claims that the new award of attorney’s fees is also governed by the doctrine of “law of the case.” St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc. v. Sanchioni, 511 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). We disagree and find St. Mary’s distinguishable on two grounds. First, we reversed the award of fees in St. Mary's based upon a computational error by the trial court. In addition, this court could not determine from the record…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)