Baumstein v. Sunrise Community, Inc., No. 98-1186.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | SCHWARTZ, Chief. |
| Citation | 738 So.2d 420 |
| Parties | Sandra BAUMSTEIN, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Karen Baumstein, Appellant, v. SUNRISE COMMUNITY, INC., a Florida corporation, and Dr. Lucrezia Aquino, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1186. |
738 So.2d 420
Sandra BAUMSTEIN, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Karen Baumstein, Appellant,v.
SUNRISE COMMUNITY, INC., a Florida corporation, and Dr. Lucrezia Aquino, Appellees
No. 98-1186.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 7, 1999.
Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld and Stuart B. Yanofsky and Howard M. Talenfeld, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Cole, White & Billbrough and Geoffrey B. Marks and G. Bart Billbrough, Miami, for Sunrise Community.
Bruce I. Yegelwel, Miami; Hicks & Anderson and Jean Kneale, Miami, and Ila J. Klion, for Dr. Aquino.
Ellen Saideman, Fort Lauderdale; Leonard Helfand, Tallahassee, as amicus curiae
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Sandra Baumstein, the personal representative of her late sister Karen, a developementally disabled adult who had been a resident of a private facility owned by the appellee Sunrise Community Incorporated, brought an action against Sunrise and Karen's physician, Dr. Lucrezia Aquino, claiming damages for the defendants' alleged violation of rights guaranteed to such patients by section 393.13, Florida Statutes (1993), the "Bill of Rights of Persons Who are Developmentally Disabled." The trial judge dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that no private cause of action may be asserted under the act. We reverse.
There is no question that the primary, perhaps the only, issue pertinent to the question of whether a private cause of action may be based upon the breach of a statute is whether the legislature intended that to be the case. Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So.2d 983 (Fla.1994); see Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1999)[24 FLW S283, S285]. In this instance, it has clearly answered that question in the affirmative. Section 393.13(5) provides:
(5) LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS. —Any person who violates or abuses any rights or privileges of persons who are developmentally disabled provided by this act shall be liable for damages as determined by law. Any person who acts in good faith compliance with the provisions of this act shall be immune from civil or criminal liability for actions in connection with evaluation, admission, habilitative programming, education, treatment, or discharge of a client. However, this section shall not relieve any person from liability if such person is guilty of negligence, misfeasance,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. City of Riviera Beach, Case No. 12–80870–CIV.
...intent. United Auto. Ins. Co. v. A 1st Choice Healthcare Sys., 21 So.3d 124, 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Baumstein v. Sunrise Cmty., Inc., 738 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“There is no question that the primary, perhaps the only, issue pertinent to the question of whether a private cause ......
-
Woodburn v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., Case No. 09–20981–CIV.
...law.” Id. at § 393.13(5). The existence of a private right of action under § 393.13 was acknowledged in Baumstein v. Sunrise Cmty., Inc., 738 So.2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). As this is a private civil action, the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard applies to allegations of a violation of § 393.1......
-
Hudson v. City of Riviera Beach, Case No. 12-80870-CIV-ROSENBAUM/HUNT
...intent. United Auto. Ins. Co. v. A 1st Choice Healthcare Sys., 21 So. 3d 124, 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Baumstein v. Sunrise Cmty., Inc., 738 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("There is no question that the primary, perhaps the only, issue pertinent to the question of whether a private caus......
-
Fassy v. Crowley, No. 2D04-1.
...393.13(3)(g) and a private cause of action with liability for violations under section 393.13(5). See Baumstein v. Sunrise Cmty., Inc., 738 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The Personal Representative persuaded the circuit court that a claim founded on section 393.13(3)(g) can be proved b......