RITA F. MIMMS AND WILLIAM K. MIMMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCIS P. CASSIDY, M.D., ET AL., 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 Rita and William Mimms appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing claims against Dr. Cassidy and Hodnette Medical Center Clinic based on the statute of limitations, and claims against West Florida Regional Medical Center on grounds of agency liability. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Dr. Cassidy and Hodnette, but held that the partial judgment against West Florida was not appealable because interrelated claims remained pending.
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Cassidy and Hodnette based on the statute of limitations. The court held that the partial summary judgment against West Florida was not appealable because interrelated claims against West Florida arising from the same transaction remained pending, and therefore the Mimms' failure to argue for reversal of that portion was not dispositive of its merits.
[1] A final judgment or order dismissing less than all interrelated claims or counts involving the same transaction and parties is not appealable if any interrelated claim in…
[2] Failure to argue for reversal of a partial summary judgment order does not constitute abandonment of the issue when the order is not appealable as to that party.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A final judgment or order dismissing less than all of the interrelated claims or counts involving the same transaction and the same parties is not appealable if there is any interrelated claim involving the same transaction and same parties remaining in the suit.”
Establishes the foundational rule that partial judgments involving interrelated claims from the same transaction are not appealable when claims remain pending.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Mimms allegedly suffered brain damage during a recovery room incident. The Mimms filed a fourteen-count complaint against multiple defendants inc…
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 Interrelated Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Rita F. Mimms and William K. Mimms have appealed from an order entering par tial summary judgment in favor of appel-lees Dr. Cassidy and the Hodnette Medical Center Clinic, P.A., based on the running of the statute of limitations. We affirm. See Wilhelm v. Traynor, 434 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) pet. for rev. den. 444 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1984); Elliot v. Barrow, 526 So. 2d 989, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA) rev. den. 536 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1988).
Partial summary judgment was also entered in favor of appellee West Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. on two of the four counts alleged against it in appellants’ complaint. It is West Florida’s contention herein that the Mimms’ failure to argue for reversal of the partial summary judgment as to West Florida constitutes abandonment of that issue. We disagree.
A final judgment or order dismissing less than all of the interrelated claims or counts involving the same transaction and the same parties is not appeal-able if there is any interrelated claim involving the same transaction and same parties remaining in the suit. Odham v. Mount, 484 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Vila v. O’Brien, 511 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Four counts of the fourteen count complaint embodied allegations against West Florida, all arising out of a recovery room incident wherein Mrs. Mimms allegedly suffered brain damage. The counts which were affected by the instant order (Counts XII and XIV) alleged liability for Mimms’ injury on the grounds that Dr. Cassidy and appellee Nurse Coin were employees of West Florida.
However, remaining to be litigated between Mimms and West Florida are counts alleging negligence in West Florida’s failure to provide sufficient personnel to adequately supervise Mimms’ recovery (Count V) and its alleged violation of Section 395.-005, Florida Statutes, by failing to insure that sufficient personnel with appropriate occupational disciplines were present and on duty in the recovery room (Count VIII). Because there remain after the summary judgment “interrelated claims involving the same transaction and the same parties,” the order is not appealable as to West Florida, and the Mimms’ failure to argue for reversal of that portion of the order is not dispositive of its merits.
Affirmed.
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Odham v. David Mouat, M.D., 484 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Elliot v. Mark V. Barrow, M.D., 526 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Wilhelm v. A.R. Traynor, Jr., D.O., 434 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Vila v. O'Brien, 511 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)