JOHN DOE, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANE DOE, AND JOHN DOE, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
NORTH OKALOOSA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 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 affirmed an arbitration award, finding no impropriety in the arbitrators' reliance on expert testimony and their decision to exclude social security retirement benefits from the damages award.
The court held that social security retirement benefits are not collateral sources and can be considered in damages, but affirmed the arbitrators' denial of these benefits because they were not proven as economic damages.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact.
[2] Summary judgment must be denied if the record reflects even the possibility of a material issue of fact or if different inferences can be drawn reasonably from the facts.
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 intelligenceEvelyn Barlow, widow of Samuel Edward Barlow, appealed an arbitration award following her husband's death at North Okaloosa Medical Center. She argued…
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 Validity Of Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Doe, as surviving spouse and personal representative of the Estate of Jane Doe, and John Doe, individually, appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellees North Okaloosa Medical Center (NOMC) and Mozelle Folmar, and a dismissal with prejudice in favor of appel-lee S. Ray Tresch, in the Does’ lawsuit seeking damages for battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and civil conspiracy.1 The instant action was based upon Jane Doe’s allegations that she was raped anally by a radiology technician employed by NOMC during an out-patient CT scan procedure at NOMC, and that a release executed by Jane Doe (now deceased), and John Doe, her husband, was fraudulently induced by NOMC, its risk manager, and its attorney. Appellant does not seek review of the summary judgment and dismissal granted as to counts III, IV and V.
Accordingly, we affirm the rulings on counts III, IV and V, but we reverse the summary judgment and dismissal as to counts I, II and VI.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the heavy burden of proving a negative — the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. “If the record reflects even the possibility of a material issue of fact, or if different inferences can be drawn reasonably from the facts, that doubt must be resolved against the moving party and summary judgment must be denied.” Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So. 2d 1092, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citations omitted).
Here, when the facts and all reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them are viewed in a light most favorable to appellant, disputed issues of material fact exist concerning whether the release is a valid contract and binding on the Does. Specifically, disputed issues of fact exist concerning all of the factual issues raised by the Does’ responses to the appellees’ affirmative defenses, as well as whether a release was validly executed by the Does, whether there was adequate consideration for the release, and whether the Does ratified the voidable release by retaining the $15,000 paid by the defendants in return for the release. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Horn, 100 Fla. 1339, 131 So. 219 (1930); Komer v. Shipley, 154 F. 2d 861, 865-66 (5th Cir.1946).
Accordingly, we reverse the summary final judgment and dismissal with prejudice on counts I, II and VI and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, VAN NORTWICK AND POLSTON, JJ., concur. . Presumably to protect the identity and privacy of the plaintiffs/appellants, the action and appeal was filed in the fictitious names of Jane Doe and John Doe.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roach v. Totalbank, 85 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…cts even the possibility of a material issue of fact, or if different inferences can be drawn reasonably from the facts, that doubt must be resolved against the moving party and summary judgment must be denied.’ ” Doe v. N. Okaloosa Med. Ctr., Inc., 802 So. 2d 1202, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quoting Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So. 2d 1092, 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). “[Sjummary judgment is appropriate only where each affirmative defense has been conclusively refuted on the record.” Pavolini v. Williams, 91…
-
Small v. Devon Condo. B Ass'n, Inc., 141 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…t inferences can be drawn reasonably from the facts, that doubt must be resolved against the moving party and summary judgment must be denied.’ ” Roach v. Totalbank, 85 So. 3d 574, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Doe v. N. Okaloosa Med. Ctr., Inc., 802 So. 2d 1202, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). [*578] Section 718.111(5), Florida Statutes (2009), provides: Right of access to units. — The association has the irrevocable right of access to each unit during reasonable hours, when necessary for the maintenance, repa…
-
Lopez v. Wilsonart, LLC, 275 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- COX v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Horn, 100 Fla. 1339 (Fla. 1930)
- Komer v. Shipley, 154 F.2d 861 (5th Cir. 1946)