BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RAMIRO J. ABAUNZA, 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.
The court held that statutory notice requirements for professional negligence actions do not apply to a contribution claim between parties already found liable.
Following a joint judgment for professional negligence against a hospital and a doctor, the hospital paid the entire judgment and sought contribution …
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 Liability Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., appeals an order dismissing its action against Dr. Ramiro Abaunza and his professional association for contribution. We reverse.
In 1987 suit was brought against Baptist Hospital and Abaunza alleging professional negligence. A verdict was rendered jointly and severally against Abaunza and the hospital, and final judgment was entered thereon. The hospital paid the entire judgment and then filed a claim for contribution against Abaunza and his professional association pursuant to section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1989).
Insofar as pertinent here, Abaunza moved to dismiss for Baptist’s failure to comply with section 766.104, Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action with leave to refile after the expiration of ninety days. It appears that the trial court invoked section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), as well as section 766.104.
We agree with Baptist that the cited statutes are inapplicable where, as here, the parties to the contribution action have already been found liable for professional negligence. The statutory procedures are intended to be applied preliminary to a determination of liability. See Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Where there has been a determination of liability on the professional negligence claim, an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definition of sections 766.104 and 766.106.
We therefore reverse the dismissal of the action and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. Va. Ins. Reciprocal, 842 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2003)…that toll the statute of limitations, we caution contribution claimants that the presuit screening requirements are not applicable where the liability of the joint tortfeasor has already been determined. See Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Abaunza, 563 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).6 As explained by the Third District in Baptist Hospital, these “statutory procedures are intended to be applied preliminary to a determination of liability. Where there has been a determination of liability on the professional ne…
-
Va. Ins. Reciprocal v. Frank C. Walker, Jr., M.D., 765 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ning requirements if the liability of the alleged joint tortfeasor had already been determined and the plaintiff in the contribution action was merely attempting to obtain a judgment against that party. In Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc. v. Abaunza, 563 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the court held that a party did not have to meet the presuit investigation requirements of Chapter 766 before fifing its contribution action, because both parties to the contribution action had already been found liable for medic…
Authorities Cited
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Mem'l Hosp., 363 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)