JOAN MARTIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BROWARD GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL., DEFENDANTS-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.
The court held that a state hospital employee acting within the scope of their duties is protected by sovereign immunity, and their private liability coverage is irrelevant to this immunity.
Plaintiff was voluntarily committed to a state hospital and treated by Dr. Linares, an employee. Her condition was misdiagnosed as psychiatric when it…
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 Governmental Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
TROWBRIDGE, C. PFEIFFER, Associate Judge.
Plaintiff, after undergoing numerous examinations by private physicians, voluntarily committed herself to South Florida State Hospital. Defendant, Dr. Edmee Linares, an employee of the State Hospital, diagnosed Plaintiff’s condition as a hysterical neurosis of the conversion type. Plaintiff was thereafter treated in all respects as a psychiatric patient during her commitment.
Upon her discharge, Plaintiff continued to suffer from weakness and paralysis. Ultimately it was ascertained that her problem was not of a psychiatric origin, but rather from a neurological disease. She thereupon brought the instant suit against several doctors and hospitals including Dr. Edmee Linares. Recovery was sought against Dr. Linares only to the extent of the doctor’s privately obtained liability coverage.
The trial court dismissed the complaint as to Dr. Linares and the insurance carrier upon a finding of governmental immunity and the case of Loucks v. Adair, 312 So. 2d 531 (1st DCA Fla.1973).
Plaintiff appeals claiming that Fla.Stat. § 394.459 establishes the doctor’s liability for negligence. This claim was found invalid in Loucks, supra, and we concur in the reasoning of our sister court.
The second theory of recovery is based upon the insurance coverage obtained by Dr. Linares. However, no general law of Florida waives the sovereign immunity of the State (not sued here) or of its employees acting within the course and scope of their official duties. Accordingly, the insurance policy is irrelevant to the issues here.
Affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1982)…46 (1965). Whether Eastman held a teacher could not assert immunity because he was an employee or because his position was ministerial in nature was unclear. Duncan and Baird relied on Eastman. . Also cited is Martin v. Broward Gen. Medical Center, 332 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), which merely relies on Loucks. . George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, 289 U.S. 373, 53 S.Ct. 620, 77 L.Ed. 1265 (1933), did not involve an act of personal negligence. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed…
-
Atwater v. Broward Cnty., 556 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…9). In the absence of a governing statute, the private purchase of liability insurance by an employee of a political subdivision of the state is not a waiver of the employee’s statutory immunity from tort claims. Martin v. Broward Gen. Med. Center, 332 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Wilson v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 436 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Here, the trial court correctly recognized that section 286.28 explicitly refers solely to the purchase of insurance by one of the specified government entiti…
Authorities Cited
- Loucks v. C. H. Adair, M.D., 312 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)