MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
RICHARD S. WOLFSON, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIA WOLFSON, DECEASED, RESPONDENT
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.
Mount Sinai Hospital sought certiorari to review a trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint. The court held that the complaint fell within Florida's Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1975 and therefore could not proceed without first being submitted to a medical liability mediation panel.
The court held that the complaint falls within the scope of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act and therefore cannot be maintained in court until the claim has been submitted to a medical liability mediation panel as required by § 768.133(2), Fla.Stat.
[1] A claim for damages arising from alleged malpractice by a hospital must be submitted to a medical liability mediation panel before it can be filed in court.
[2] Allegations of common law negligence against a hospital may fall within the purview of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act, requiring mediation.
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“Any person or his representative claiming damages by reason of injury, death or monetary loss on account of the alleged malpractice by any medical or osteopathic physician, hospital, or health maintenance organization and against whom he believes there is a reasonable basis for a claim shall submit such claim to the appropriate panel [medical liability mediation panel] before that claim may be filed in any court of this state.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that malpractice claims must be submitted to a mediation panel before court filing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Julia Wolfson, a patient at Mount Sinai Hospital, suffered injuries while hospitalized. The executor of her estate filed an amended complaint all…
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 Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is a petition for certiorari brought by petitioner, defendant below, to review an order denying its motion to dismiss respondent executor’s, plaintiff below, amended complaint.
The amended complaint charged that petitioner caused injuries to its patient, Mrs. Julia Wolfson, deceased, by one or more of the following acts:
Petitioner failed to maintain a properly operating warning system whereby a patient in distress could get the attention of its hospital agents, servants or employees; petitioner failed to adequately maintain whafsignal devices were present for the use of Mrs. Wolfson and other patients in the same or similar class; petitioner failed to maintain proper surveillance of Mrs. Wolf-son as required by her seriously ill condition and failed to provide her with the standard of maintenance required of a patient in the same or similar condition; petitioner failed to provide proper and adequate bedrails to insure the protection of its patients against the happening of such incidents as the one sued upon herein; and petitioner by and through its agents, servants and employees negligently and carelessly failed to diagnose the injuries to Mrs. Wolfson within adequate time to prevent her from suffering pain and distress as a result of the injuries.
Petitioner moved to dismiss respondent’s amended complaint on the ground it appears from the face of the complaint that it does not conform to The Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1975, Chapter 75-9, Fla.Laws 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The pertinent provision of the Act reads as follows:
“§ 768.133. Medical liability mediation panel.—
“(2) Any person or his representative claiming damages by reason of injury, death or monetary loss on account of the alleged malpractice by any medical or osteopathic physician, hospital, or health maintenance organization and against whom he believes there is a reasonable basis for a claim shall submit such claim to the appropriate panel [medical liability mediation panel] before that claim may be filed in any court of this state.
After a hearing, the trial court entered an order, dated October 10, 1975, denying petitioner’s motion on the ground the allegations of the amended complaint demonstrate that as a matter of law the case does not fall within the purview of § 768.133, Fla.Stat. This order was predicated on respondent’s argument to the trial court that the acts complained of in his amended complaint were acts constituting common law negligence and were not the types of acts contemplated in the Act.
By its petition for a writ of certiorari, petitioner seeks to quash the order denying its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the trial court acted without and in excess of its jurisdiction and departed from the essential requirements of the law. Petitioner also contends that, unless the order is quashed, it will have no adequate remedy by appeal if a final judgment is entered in the case.
We have carefully considered the allegations of the amended complaint in the light of the Act, especially § 768.133(2) thereof, and have concluded that the trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It appears to us that respondent’s suit is controlled by the Act and can not be maintained in a court of law in this state until it has been shown that the claim was first submitted to a medical liability mediation panel as required by § 768.133(2), Fla.Stat. Therefore, for the reasons stated the writ of certiorari is granted and the order under review is quashed.
Certiorari granted and order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. Biscayne Med. Ctr., Inc., 347 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…thin the purview of Section 768.44, Florida Statutes (1976 Supp.) and must first be submitted to a medical liability mediation panel before being maintained in a court of law in this state. See Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Wolfson, 327 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Counts III through VII, however, have no connection with medical negligence (malpractice). Appellant was allegedly falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted for trespassing at the hospital. In an attempt to remove appellant fr…
-
Stackhouse v. Emerson, 611 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…on lack of informed consent.2 Martinez v. Lifemark Hospital of Florida, Inc., 608 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Neilinger v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., 460 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Wolfson, 327 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). As noted, appellees’ motions to dismiss contain several supporting grounds but the order of dismissal was based solely upon the statute of limitations issue. Because we hold only that appellant’s amended complaint, on its face,…
-
Oswaldo Herrera and Aleida Herrera v. Doctor's Hosp. & Elbert L. Fisher, 360 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…e statute is persuasive to our decision. Mandatory language is used to command submission of one’s claim to a mediation, panel prior to initiation of a medical malpractice suit in a court. See Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Wolfson, 327 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). But only precatory language is used when the statute deals with presentation of evidence before a panel. If the legislature had intended to require evidence to be produced before the panel, it could have delineated this requireme…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence