VICKIE BROADWAY AND HUSBAND MICHAEL E. BROADWAY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BAY HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A HCA GULF COAST HOSPITAL, 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.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a premises liability complaint arising from a hospital bed collapse, holding that the case does not constitute a medical malpractice claim subject to statutory presuit screening requirements because it alleges failure to warn of a dangerous condition rather than breach of professional standard of care.
The court reversed and held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. The Broadways' claim for failure to warn of a dangerous condition and improper maintenance of equipment does not constitute medical malpractice requiring compliance with chapter 766 presuit screening requirements, because it does not allege breach of a professional standard of care.
[1] A claim arising out of the failure to warn of a dangerous condition or properly maintain equipment does not constitute a claim for medical malpractice.
[2] The presuit screening requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes, apply only to claims alleging a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care.
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“From the face of the complaint, it is apparent that appellants have sued appellee for the failure to warn of a dangerous condition or properly maintain a piece of equipment, rather than for breach of some professional standard of care.”
Establishes the court's holding that the complaint alleges premises liability rather than medical malpractice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVickie Broadway was a patient at Bay Hospital in July 1989 when her hospital bed collapsed, injuring her. The Broadways filed a second amended complai…
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 Prevailing Professional Standard Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
[*177] PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final order dismissing appellants’ second amended complaint with prejudice. Appellants contend (1) that the trial court erred in finding that they were required to comply with the presuit screening requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes, for medical malpractice claims; (2) that their compliance with the presuit screening requirements was sufficient such that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint; and (3) that section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes, which imposes as a condition precedent to the filing of a medical malpractice claim that the plaintiff provide notice of the claim and a corroborating expert opinion, is unconstitutional. We reverse as to the first issue and, consequently, do not reach the second and third issues.
The second amended complaint alleged that plaintiff/appellant Vickie Broadway was a patient at appellee’s hospital in July 1989 and was injured when her hospital bed collapsed. Appellants sought damages based on appellee’s breach of its duty to use reasonable care in maintaining its premises and breach of its duty to warn Ms. Broadway of latent hazards. Appellee sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint stated a claim for medical negligence and that appellants had failed to comply with the presuit screening requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes. The trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice under section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes, which requires that a medical malpractice complaint be dismissed if the court finds that the plaintiff is not in compliance with the presuit investigation requirements of chapter 766.
Under section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes, “claim for medical malpractice” is defined as “a claim arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” A person seeking recovery for injury resulting from medical malpractice must prove that the injury resulted from a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes. The test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes, is whether the defendant is directly or vicariously liable under the medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes. Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1993), citing NME Properties, Inc. McCullough, 590 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Not every wrongful act by a health care provider amounts to medical malpractice. Stackhouse v. Emerson, 611 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
From the face of the complaint, it is apparent that appellants have sued appellee for the failure to warn of a dangerous condition or properly maintain a piece of equipment, rather than for breach of some professional standard of care. We hold that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. We reject appellee’s contention that Neilinger v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., 460 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), requires affir-mance of the order below. In Neilinger, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff, a maternity patient, slipped and fell on a pool of amniotic fluid while descending from an examination table under the direction and care of employees of the hospital. The complaint on its face alleged breach of a professional standard of care.
The order appealed from is therefore reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lake Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Clarke, 768 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…d fall” negligence action arising on premises of medical care provider). We distinguish the case relied upon the appellant, Neilinger v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 460 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As we explained in Broadway v. Bay Hosp., Inc., 638 So. 2d 176, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the complaint in Neil-inger alleged that the plaintiff therein, a maternity patient, “slipped and fell on a pool of amniotic fluid while descending from an examination table under the direction and care of employees of the…
-
Goldman v. Halifax Med. Ctr., Inc., 662 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…course of their employment, McCullough, so too are health care providing employers entitled to these provisions when their health care or non-health care employees commit such acts or omissions. Relying primarily on Broadway v. Bay Hospital, Inc., 638 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), Goldman argues that the failure to calibrate properly the mammography equipment is not medical malpractice. In Broadway, the court found that the complaint did not sound in medical negligence where the plaintiff alleged she was…
-
Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. The Est. OF Ashley Lawson, 175 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ll, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers.” § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. Our court said in Broadway v. Bay Hospital, Inc., 638 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA .1994), that the test for determining if presuit requirements apply is “whether the defendant is directly or vicariously hable under the medical negligence standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes.” Now, to…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ronda C. Weinstock, PH.D. v. Groth, 629 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1993)
- NME Props., Inc. v. McCULLOUGH, 590 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- A.S. v. State, 460 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Stackhouse v. Emerson, 611 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)