UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, ETC.
v.
SHANAY HALL JONES, ETC.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-05-15
No. 2023-1328
338 So. 3d 401 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

University of Miami petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint for failure to comply with pre-suit requirements under Florida's medical malpractice statute (Chapter 766). The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the trial court properly found compliance with pre-suit notice requirements and did not err in adopting the plaintiff's proposed order after conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Holding

The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The trial court properly adopted the plaintiff's proposed order because the record showed the judge conducted thoughtful and independent analysis after an evidentiary hearing with witness testimony from both parties. Jones complied with the statutory pre-suit notice requirement because she provided written notice describing the occurrence underlying the claim, and Chapter 766 does not require any particular form for notice or 'magic words.'

Headnotes

[1] A trial court may adopt a party's proposed order, provided the order reflects the judge's thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law.

[2] A claimant's notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation need not be in any particular form or contain specific "magic words" as long as it describes the…

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
Key Quotes

“Trial courts are not precluded from adopting a party's proposed order, so long as the order does not 'substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge.'”

Establishes the legal standard for when trial courts may adopt proposed orders, rejecting the University's argument that verbatim adoption was improper.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

University of Miami Hospital received notice from Shanay Hall Jones regarding a claim arising from medical treatment. Jones provided written notice 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.

Topics
Certiorari Review Petition For Writ Of Certiorari Evidentiary Hearing

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 15, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1328 Lower Tribunal No. 17-3493

________________

University of Miami, etc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

Shanay Hall Jones, etc.,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Fowler White Burnett, P.A., and Christopher E. Knight and Marc J. Schleier, for petitioner. Louis Thaler, P.A., and Louis Thaler, for respondent. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.

The defendant below, University of Miami d/b/a University of Miami Hospital (“the University”), petitions this Court for a second writ of certiorari,1 seeking to quash the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss the plaintiff, Shanay Hall Jones’s (“Jones”) ,complaint for failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements of Chapter 766, Florida Statutes. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.

As an initial matter, the University contends that certiorari relief is warranted because the trial court adopted Jones’s proposed order verbatim. “At a minimum, [section 766.206(1)] require[s that] the trial court make an express finding as to [the claimant’s] compliance with the presuit requirements.” PP Transition, LP v. Munson, 232 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Thus, the University alleges that the trial court could not adopt Jones’s proposed order outright.

Trial courts are not precluded from adopting a party’s proposed order, so long as the order does not “substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge.” Perlow v. Berg- Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383, 388–390 (Fla. 2004). Here, the record reflects that

Footnotes
1 In University of Miami v. Jones, 338 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), this Court quashed the trial court’s December 8, 2021 order because it failed to make an express finding on Jones’s compliance with the statutory requirements. Id. at 403. Here, the University seeks review of a subsequent order, entered after the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter. the trial judge did not adopt Jones’s proposed order without thought or analysis. The trial court permitted both parties to call and question witnesses at the evidentiary hearing and to submit proposed orders, several days before ruling. As such, the court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law. Next, the University cites to Otto v. Rodriguez, 710 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), to argue that its failure to provide medical records did not waive all of Jones’s pre-suit requirements under section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2023).2 The University is correct in that regard, yet, in Otto, the claimant provided no notice whatsoever. Otto, 710 So. 2d at 2–3. In contrast, here, Jones afforded the University with notice. “[Chapter 766] does not require any particular form for the notice or any ‘magic words.’ Any manner of written notice which describes the occurrence underlying the claim should suffice.” Tracey v. Barrett, 550 So. 2d 558, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Here, the trial court found that the notice was sufficient given the limited information available,3 and concluded that Jones complied with the pre-suit notice
2 Chapter 766 contains several prerequisites to filing a medical malpractice action. See, e.g., § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2023).
3 The University failed to comply with Jones’s requests for medical records, waiving the requirement for a corroborating medical expert opinion. See § 766.204(2), Fla. Stat. (2023). requirements. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in making these findings. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Univ. of Miami v. Shanay Hall Jones, 338 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
    …order does not “substitute for a thoughtful and independent analysis of the facts, issues, and law by the trial judge.” Perlow v. Berg- Perlow, 875 So. 2d 383, 388–390 (Fla. 2004). Here, the record reflects that 1 In University of Miami v. Jones, 338 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), this Court quashed the trial court’s December 8, 2021 order because it failed to make an express finding on Jones’s compliance with the statutory requirements. Id. at 403. Here, the University seeks review of a subsequent order,…
  • Noble v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw