MONIQUE MESSAM, RN
v.
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST AND JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEM
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.
Nurse Monique Messam challenged her termination from Jackson Hospital by the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County. The appellate court affirmed the termination decision, holding that the President and CEO's rejection of the hearing examiner's recommendation and employment termination decision complied with applicable law and was supported by competent substantial evidence.
The court held that the decision to reject the hearing examiner's recommendation and terminate the employee was the sole prerogative of the President and CEO of Jackson Health System and complied with the essential requirements of law. The termination decision was supported by competent substantial evidence and the CEO properly deferred to in matters involving technical expertise and policy determinations.
[1] The decision to reject a hearing examiner's recommendation and terminate an employee is the sole prerogative of the President and CEO of the Health System, and such a dec…
[2] Competent substantial evidence, including the employee's own testimony regarding patient care failures, supports the CEO's decision to terminate employment.
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“the decision to reject the hearing examiner's recommendation and terminate the employee was the sole prerogative of the of the President and CEO of Jackson Health System, and thus complied with the essential requirements of law”
Establishes the holding that the CEO's termination decision was lawful and within the scope of agency authority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonique Messam, a registered nurse, was terminated from her position at Jackson Hospital. The termination was based on findings that Messam failed to …
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.
Before: TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA. Page 1 of 3 [*2] PER CURIAM.
Nurse Monique Messam petitions the decision by the President and CEO of the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County to terminate her employment at Jackson Hospital.
We find that the decision to reject the hearing examiner's recommendation and terminate the employee was the sole prerogative of the of the President and CEO of Jackson Health System, and thus complied with the essential requirements of law. See Raghunandan v. Miami-Dade County, 777 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (issue whether certain behavior or conduct constitutes incompetence or misconduct is a matter of opinion ""infused by policy considerations for which the agency has special responsibility") (quoting Schrimsher v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County, 694 So. 2d 856, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).
Competent substantial evidence, including the Petitioner's own testimony that she failed to treat her patient's blood pressure spike before going on break and when he was unresponsive, ran out of the room rather than calling in a Code Blue, supported the decision of the CEO. In Dusseau v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Com'rs, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1275-76 (Fla. 2001), in approving reversal of a circuit court decision, the Court emphasized that a reviewing circuit panel is required to review the record for evidence supporting the decision below, rather than reweighing the evidence presented:
Page 2 of 3 [*3] [The] "competent substantial evidence" standard cannot be used by a reviewing court as a mechanism for exerting covert control over the policy determinations and factual findings of the local agency. Rather, this standard requires the reviewing court to defer to the agency's superior technical expertise and special vantage point in such matters. The issue before the court is not whether the agency's decision is the "best" decision or the "right" decision or even a "wise" decision, for these are technical and policy-based determinations properly within the purview of the agency. The circuit court has no training or experienceand is inherently unsuited to sit as a roving "super agency" with plenary oversight in such matters.
Petitioner does not allege that she was deprived of her due process rights.
Accordingly, we deny this petition for writ of certiorari.
TRAWICK and SANTOVENIA, JJ., concur. COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
Page 3 of 3 [*4] Copies Furnished to: [email protected] [email protected] Leona. [email protected] Lissette. [email protected]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dusseau v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001)
- Schrimsher v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 694 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Jairaj Raghunandan v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 777 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)