CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER, P.A., THEODORE MORRISON, M.D., KENNETH BUDOWSKY, M.D., JACINTA MAGNUS, M.D., AND NANCY CHIANG, M.D., PETITIONERS,
v.
JAKYUNG KIM AND WOOCHAN KIM, AS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIEND OF BABY SEAHYUN KIM, A MINOR, RESPONDENTS
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.
Pediatric physicians sought certiorari review of an order denying their motion to abate a medical malpractice action, arguing that the action must first be submitted to the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA). The court held that the physicians were not entitled to NICA protections because they did not provide obstetrical services, did not give pre-delivery notice, and were not participating physicians under the NICA statute.
The court held that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying the motion to abate because the physicians were not covered persons or entities under NICA, having failed to provide obstetrical services, give pre-delivery notice, or qualify as participating NICA physicians. Therefore, NICA's exclusive remedy provision does not apply, and the respondents may pursue their civil action against the non-covered physicians.
[1] Certiorari review is available to review an order denying a motion to abate a medical negligence action.
[2] The Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA) applies only to injuries occurring during the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“NICA benefits are severable as to defendants and that a claimant may opt to accept NICA benefits for a compensable injury or proceed against a person or entity who failed to give notice and was therefore not entitled to NICA protections”
Establishes that NICA coverage is not all-or-nothing and that claimants can pursue non-covered defendants while forgoing NICA benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents brought a medical negligence action against pediatric physicians for alleged malpractice in treating their child during the days and weeks…
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 Motion To Abate cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners are pediatric physicians who seek certiorari review of an order denying their ■ motion to abate a medical negligence action. They assert that, before the action can proceed in circuit court, an administrative law judge must first determine whether the injuries suffered by ■ the respondents’ child fall within the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (NICA). See §§ 766.301-766.316, Fla. Stat. (2007). *115Although there is no pending NICA claim, certiorari lies to review the denial of a motion to abate. See generally State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Kelly, 533 So.2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Univ. of Miami v. M.A., 793 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We agree with respondents that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying petitioners’ motion.
The complaint alleges that the malpractice occurred in treating the child during the days and weeks after the birth, and not within the “immediate post-delivery period in a hospital.” § 766.302(2), Fla.' Stat. - (2007). The respondents have neither sought nor accepted NICA benefits as 'to any covered doctor or entity. These petitioners did not provide any obstetrical services, nor did they provide pre-delivery notice as required 'to claim immunity from civil suit under NICA. See § 766.316, Fla. Stat. (2007). In fact, these petitioners are not participating physicians or within the class of doctors covered by the NICA statute. See §§ 766.301, 766.302(7), Fla. Stat. (2007).
Even if injuries that the child suffered during birth were arguably compensable under NICA in this .case, the exclusiveness of remedy provision of section 766.303(2) does not apply. See Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Admin. Hearings, 29 So.3d 992, 999 (Fla.2010) (explaining that NICA benefits are severable as to defendants and that a claimant may opt to accept NICA benefits for a compensable injury or proceed against a person or entity who failed to give notice and was therefore not entitled to NICA protections); Pediatrix Med. Grp. of Fla., Inc. v. Falconer, 31 So.3d 310, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“When a claim is compensable under NICA as to some persons or entities involved, but not others, a claimant must elect to accept the NICA no-fault benefits or .to pursue a civil action against any non-coyered persons or entities.”). Here, respondents have elected to pursue their claim as a civil action against the petitioners, who are non-covered persons or entities under, the NICA statute. As such, petitioners have failed to make a prima facie showing of any entitlement to NICA’s exclusive remedy provisions.
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
TAYLOR, MAY and . KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Dep't OF Admin. Hearings, 29 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2010)
- Univ. OF Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 533 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Pediatrix Med. Grp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Mia Falconer, 31 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)