EDMUND L. WHEELER, APPELLANT,
v.
MOHAMMAD ALI HAJIANPOUR, M.D.; M.A. HAJIANPOUR, M.D., PA.; TOTAL ORTHOPAEDIC CARE, P.A.; MICHAEL P. FEANNY, M.D.; MICHAEL P. FEANNY, M.D., P.A.; GALEN OF FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A/ HUMANA HOSPITAL-BENNETT A/K/A/ WESTSIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; HUMANA OF FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A/ HUMANA HOSPITAL-BENNETT A/K/A/ WESTSIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF SOUTH BROWARD D/B/A/ HUMANA HOSPITAL-BENNETT A/K/A/ WESTSIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; COLUMBIA/HCA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, D/B/A/ HUMANA HOSPITAL-BENNETT A/K/A/ WESTSIDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; HUMANA MEDICAL PLANS, INC.; HUMANA, INC.; GAIL S. BONNER, M.D.; DEBRA F. REINFELD, M.D., D/B/A/ INTERNAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF PLANTATION; DEBRA REINFELD, M.D., P.A., 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.
Edmund Wheeler appealed the dismissal with prejudice of his medical malpractice complaint filed in October 1995. The trial court dismissed the action on grounds that Wheeler failed to comply with a court directive and/or because an identical complaint was already pending in a different division. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding dismissal with prejudice an improper sanction and directing the trial court to properly compare the complaints to determine if abatement was appropriate.
Dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order was improper and too harsh under these circumstances. The court vacated the dismissal and remanded for the trial court to compare the two complaints to determine if abatement (rather than dismissal) was appropriate based on the pendency of the identical action.
[1] Dismissal of a litigant's action with prejudice as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order is generally disfavored unless the circumstances demonstrate intent…
[2] The pendency of another action is a recognized ground for the abatement of a subsequently filed action.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Dismissal of a litigant's action with prejudice as a sanction for failing to comply with a court order has generally been frowned upon by the courts, except in the most egregious circumstances of intentional defiance and contumacious disregard of the court's authority”
Establishes the high bar for dismissal with prejudice as a sanction and the principle that such dismissal is disfavored absent egregious circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdmund Wheeler filed a medical malpractice action against multiple defendants in May 1995 (case 95-006630). In October 1995, he filed a second malprac…
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 Contumacious Disregard Of Court Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
We have for review an order of the trial court dismissing a medical malpractice complaint with prejudice either as a sanction for failure to follow a court directive and/or because the complaint contained the identical causes of action which were already embraced in a lawsuit pending in a different division of the Broward County circuit court. For the reasons which follow, we vacate the order of dismissal with prejudice and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
The plaintiff, Edmund Wheeler, filed a medical malpractice action against the defendants/appellees in May of 1995. This action was assigned case number 95-006630. In October 1995, the plaintiff filed a second malpractice action against the same defendants, which was assigned case number 95-13793 and which was pending in a different division than the May 1995 action. Thereafter, the trial court granted the defendants/appellees motion to dismiss the second filed action. Two grounds were advanced in the motions to dismiss filed below: (1) that the plaintiff had failed to follow the trial court’s order to comply with an administrative order and (2) that the plaintiff had filed an identical complaint in another division of the Broward County circuit court and that the later ease (the one which is the subject of this appeal) should be dismissed.
The trial court did not indicate in the order upon which ground the dismissal was predicated. We reverse the dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with the administrative order, if it were indeed based upon this ground, as too harsh a sanction under the circumstances. Dismissal of a litigant’s action with prejudice as a sanction for failing to comply with a court order has generally been frowned upon by the courts, except in the most egregious circumstances of intentional defiance and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority (a circumstance not present in the instant case). See Whiteside v. Whiteside, 468 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), cited with approval in, Epps v. Hartley, 495 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Having concluded that the trial court could not have properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint as a sanction, we next consider whether it may have done so due to the pendency of an identical lawsuit. The pendency of another action is a well-recognized ground for the abatement of a subsequent action. State ex rel. Dos Amigos, Inc. v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 So. 533 (1930); REWJB Gas Inv. v. Land O’ Sun Realty, Ltd., 643 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), review dismissed, 651 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1995).
It is unclear from the record on appeal whether the trial court had before it the complaint from the earlier filed case number 96-006630. Therefore, we vacate the order of dismissal and remand this cause to the trial court so that it may compare the complaints filed in ease numbers 95-13793 and 95-006630. If indeed they are identical, then abatement will be appropriate.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Queen v. Adams Mark Hotel & Gallagher Basset Servs., Inc., 728 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…acious. See Commonwealth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990)(holding that a trial judge must make a specific finding of willfulness before imposing the sanction of dismissal or default); Hanna; Wheeler v. Hajianpour, 688 So. 2d 423, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(holding that “[dismissal of a litigant’s action with prejudice as a sanction for failing to comply with a court order has generally been frowned upon by the courts, except in the most egregious circumstances of intentional d…
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. LGC, 107 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ce “as a sanction for failing to comply with a court order has generally been frowned upon by the courts, except in the most egregious circumstances of intentional defiance and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority,” Wheeler v. Hajianpour, 688 So. 2d 423, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Consequently, “if a sanction less severe than dismissal with prejudice appears to be a viable alternative, the trial court should employ such an alternative.” Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818. Here, the trial court abused its disc…
-
Ashley v. Marnie Gersten, 700 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…other less draconian remedies were available to the trial court as a means of enforcing the settlement. See Paranzino v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, 690 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 695 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1997); Wheeler v. Hajianpour, 688 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The sanction of dismissal should be commensurate with the offense. See Paranzino, 690 So. 2d at 729; Kelley v. Schmidt, 613 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The question remains what appropriate but less drastic options are avai…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Dos Anigos, Inc. v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313 (Fla. 1930)
- Rewjb GAS Invs. v. Land O' SUN Realty, Ltd., 643 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Whiteside v. Whiteside, 468 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Eulle Williams v. State, 495 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Epps v. Hartley, 495 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)