CORAL GABLES HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ANA VELIZ, 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 paternity can be adjudicated within a wrongful death action, and the trial court did not err in allowing this issue to be decided.
In a wrongful death action, the Hospital challenged the appellees' right to litigate paternity, arguing it could not be resolved in such a case. The t…
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 Adjudication Of Paternity cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Coral Gables Hospital, Inc. [the Hospital] appeals the trial court’s final judgment and denial of the Hospital’s post trial motions in this wrongful death action. After careful consideration, we reject the Hospital’s appeal and affirm the trial court.
We discuss only one of the issues raised, that is, the trial court’s denial of a Hospital motion for a directed verdict. The Hospital challenged the appellees’ right to contend in a wrongful death action that the decedent, and not the reputed father, was the true biological father of the two minor children. The trial court disagreed with the Hospital’s position and allowed the issue to be adjudicated, the result of which was the conclusion that the two minor children are the biological children of the decedent, thus entitled to an award of damages as survivors under the Wrongful Death Act.
In support of its position here, the Hospital cites Achumba v. Neustein, 793 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), in which the Fifth District Court concluded that paternity is an issue that cannot be resolved in the context of a wrongful death action. Judge Griffin, however, dissented, pointing out (at 1017) that “there is no reason the relationship of the natural child to the wrongful death victim cannot simply be alleged and proved up in a wrongful death action.” The instant case is the proof of that pudding.1 The Hospital offers no suggestion as to how it was or could be prejudiced by this simplest of methods to adju dicate the issue, particularly in this time of availability of DNA testing.
Accordingly, we affirm the post trial orders and the final judgment and certify conflict with Achumba v. Neustein, 793 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Affirmed.
. DNA test results introduced at trial herein showed that the decedent was the biological father to a 99.99% chance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jonathan Greenfield, M.D. v. Dorothea Daniels, 51 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 2010)…ernity issue could not be resolved in the wrongful death action. Achumba, 793 So. 2d at 1016. The Fourth District in Daniels disagreed with Achum-ba and adopted the reasoning and holding of the Third District in Coral Gables Hospital, Inc. v. Veliz, 847 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), which held the opposite.3 While recognizing the strong presumption that a child born during a marriage is the legitimate child of the husband, the Fourth District in Daniels held that “[i]f the presumption ... has any place in w…
-
Dorothea Daniels v. Jonathan Greenfield, M.D., 15 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…her but the husband’s parental rights have never been divested. The Fifth District in Achumba v. Neustein, 793 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), answered this question in the negative, while the Third District in Coral Gables Hospital, Inc. v. Veliz, 847 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), concluded the opposite. We side with Veliz on the issue and find Achumba distinguishable on the facts from this case. In Achumba, the personal representative, Achumba, brought a claim on behalf of her child, Smoot, under the Wro…
Authorities Cited
- Achumba v. Charles L. Neustein, M.D., 793 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)