KENNETH J. STETSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF FRANCES R. STETSON, DECEASED, AND KENNETH J. STETSON, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
EXTENDICARE, INC., EXTENDICARE HEALTH FACILITIES, INC., F/K/A UNICARE HEALTH FACILITIES, INC., EXTENDICARE HOMES, INC., F/K/A UNICARE HOMES, INC., EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., D/B/A THE ARBORS AT LAKELAND, CLARK BURMA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DANIEL R. DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Kenneth Stetson appeals the dismissal of his negligence complaint against Extendicare and related parties following his wife's death at their facility. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that an alleged improper assignment of rights to a third party did not bar Stetson from pursuing his own claims against the defendants.
The court held that regardless of whether the assignment between Stetson and ICT was valid, Stetson is not barred from suing the defendants because ICT was no longer a party to the action and the assignment did not foreclose Stetson from filing suit on his own behalf.
[1] A trial court errs in dismissing a complaint with prejudice when the dismissal is based on an assignment that does not foreclose the plaintiff from filing suit.
[2] A court should not look beyond the four corners of a complaint when considering a motion to dismiss.
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“We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because, regardless of whether Stetson's assignment to ICT was valid, ICT was no longer a party to the action and the assignment did not foreclose Stetson from filing suit against the appellees.”
Core holding establishing that Stetson's ability to pursue his own claims is not defeated by the alleged improper assignment to ICT.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrances Stetson, a resident at the Arbors at Lakeland (an Extendicare facility), fell from her wheelchair while being transported by Independent Commu…
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 Violation Of Statutory Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Kenneth J. Stetson, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Frances R. Stetson, his wife, appeals the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint and reverse.
Frances Stetson was a resident of the Arbors at Lakeland, and while being transported by Independent Community Transport (ICT), she fell from her wheelchair. Frances Stetson sustained injuries as a result of the fall, and less than one month later she died. Kenneth Stetson initially sued ICT, and the case was tried before a jury. During the trial, Stetson and ICT reached a settlement agreement, and as part of the agreement, Stetson agreed to assign to ICT his right to damages awarded in his suit against the Arbors.
Thereafter, ICT and Stetson both filed suit against the appellees, alleging negligence and a violation of Frances Stetson’s rights pursuant to section 440.022, Florida Statutes (1997). This complaint was dismissed upon the appellees’ motion, which alleged that the assignment between Stetson and ICT was improper. A second complaint was dismissed on the same ground.
Stetson then filed the complaint at issue individually and as personal representative of his wife’s estate. The trial court also dismissed this complaint upon the appel-lees’ motion, ruling that the assignment between Stetson and ICT was improper and was therefore void. We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because, regardless of whether Stetson’s assignment to ICT was valid, ICT was no longer a party to the action and the assignment did not foreclose Stetson from filing suit against the appellees.
The appellees request this court to affirm based on other grounds raised in their motion to dismiss. However, we decline to do so because it would require us to improperly look beyond the. four corners of the complaint. Hayward & Assocs. v. Hoffman, 826 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint is reversed.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
STRINGER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hayward & Assocs., Inc. v. M. Dexter Hoffman, Noel K. Evans, Evans & Donica, P.A., 826 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- David Royal, M.D., & Watson Clinic, L.L.P. v. Isaac "Ike" Harnage, 826 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)