IRA S. JACOBSON, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., ETC., 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.
Dr. Jacobson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees in a contract dispute with Humana Medical Plan. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court violated the law of the case doctrine by reconsidering the fee award issue that had already been resolved favorably to Dr. Jacobson in the prior appeal.
The trial court violated the law of the case doctrine. The appellate court's affirmation of the fee reservation in the prior appeal became the law of the case, and the trial court was bound by that ruling. The order denying the motion for fees was reversed and remanded for the trial court to proceed with awarding the fees.
[1] The doctrine of the "law of the case" dictates that points of law adjudicated in a former appeal are binding in subsequent proceedings to promote stability and avoid piec…
[2] An appellate court may reconsider a prior ruling that has become the "law of the case" only if convinced that manifest injustice will result from strict adherence to the…
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“those points of law adjudicated in a former appeal are binding in order to promote stability of judicial decisions and to avoid piecemeal litigation”
Establishes the fundamental principle of the law of the case doctrine that the court applies to resolve the issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHumana sued Dr. Jacobson on a contract. Dr. Jacobson initially failed to assert a claim for attorney's fees in his answer, but shortly before trial, b…
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion for entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees. We reverse the order under review.
Humana Medical Plan, Inc. (Humana), a health maintenance organization (HMO), brought a contract action against Dr. Ira S. Jacobson. Dr. Jacobson answered the complaint; however, he did not assert a claim for attorney’s fees as either party might have, pursuant to the contract in litigation. Shortly after the filing of the answer, the Supreme Court issued Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1991), requiring that a claim for attorney’s fees be pled, or such failure would be deemed a waiver, absent the opposing parties’ notice and acquiescence.
On the eve of trial, by agreement of the parties, there was a stipulation presented to the trial court so as to permit the physician to amend his answer to assert a claim for fees and to assert a counterclaim; and to permit Humana to amend its complaint. Because the proposed amendment was submitted to the trial judge only days before trial, he denied it. Nonetheless, when the trial judge entered his final judgment it contained an explicit reservation of jurisdiction to award Dr. Jacobson costs and attorney’s fees.
Humana appealed. < In its initial brief, in addition to appealing the merits of the case, the HMO, citing to Stockman v. Downs, also appealed the reservation to award fees. In our opinion in Humana Medical Plan, Inc. v. Ira S. Jacobson, M.D., 614 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), we affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all respects including the reservation of jurisdiction to award Dr. Jacobson’s fees. Certiorari review was denied. Humana Plan, Inc. v. Ira S. Jacobson, 623 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1993). On the issuance of the mandate, Dr. Jacobson submitted a motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs, which the trial court denied citing to Stockman v. Downs. In doing so, we find that the trial judge violated the doctrine of the “law of the case.” Simply stated, that doctrine is that those points of law adjudicated in a former appeal are binding in order to promote stability of judicial decisions and to avoid piecemeal litigation. Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965); see Bakker v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Hammonton, 575 So. 2d 222, 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see also Salta Investment, Inc. v. Silva, 584 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Dhondy v. Schimpeler, 528 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
An appellate court has the power to reconsider and reverse a previous ruling that has become the “law of the case” only when convinced, on subsequent appeal, that a manifest injustice will result from a strict adherence to its prior pronouncement. Reconsideration should never be allowed when it would amount to nothing more than a second appeal on a question determined in the first. Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBro, 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see Strazzulla, 177 So. 2d at 4; see also Raymond T. Elligett, Jr. & Charles P. Schropp, Law of the Case Revisited, Fla.B.J. Mar. 1994, at 54.
In the present case, when the Supreme Court denied review and our mandate was sent down, the lower court’s determination of the attorney’s fees issue in favor of Dr. Jacobson became the law of the case. Here, there can be no claim of manifest injustice since the contract which formed the basis of the controversy apprised both parties that the one prevailing in litigation thereunder would become entitled to seek reimbursement for fees.
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court erred in denying Dr. Jacobson’s motion for entitlement to fees. Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ARCH Se. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Abraham Commc'ns, Inc., 702 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ll issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court’s opinion or not. New England Insurance Co. v. International Bank of Miami, N.A., 537 So. 2d 1025, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see also Jacobson v. Humana Medical Plan, Inc., 636 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In the interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, the issue “necessarily involved in the appeal” was whether the alleged oral contract on which the complaint had been based required arbitration of t…
-
Logue v. Logue, 766 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…has now become the law of the case. Bueno v. Khawly, 677 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). However, if the final judgment contained an error that was manifestly unjust, then this court may now rectify that mistake. Jacobson v. Huma- [*315] na Med. Plan, 636 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); McDonough Power Equip. Co. v. Brown, 486 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). This is a seldom used but important appellate power. “Exceptions to the doctrine [of the law of the case] should be invoked only ‘in unusual circumstances a…
-
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Hollander, 696 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jacobson v. Humana Med. Plan, Inc., 636 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); 3M Elec. Corp. v. Vigoa, 443 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1984). SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. McBRO, 619 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Humana Med. Plan, Inc. v. Ira S. Jacobson, M.D., 614 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Sarosh S. Dhondy v. Schimpeler, 528 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Pieter Bakker v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Hammonton, 575 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Salta Inv., Inc. v. Silva, 584 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- State v. C.R.S., 584 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)