Baumstein v. Sunrise Community, Inc., 98-1186.

Decision Date07 July 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-1186.,98-1186.
Citation738 So.2d 420
PartiesSandra 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.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

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 for Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc.

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, nonfeasance, or malfeasance. [emphasis supplied]

§ 393.13(5), Fla. Stat. (1993).

Despite the appellees' imaginative attempts to make it mean something other than what it says, the statute could hardly be clearer. While courts have often recognized causes of action even in the absence of specific statutory language, Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 24 FLW at S283, and cases cited, we need not go nearly that far here. Because we are bound by the legislature's clear and unambiguous expression of its own intent, see State v. Dugan, 685 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1996), we hold that civil liability for damages indeed arises from violations of Chapter 393.1 See also Greenfield v. Manor Care, Inc., 705 So.2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), review denied, 717 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1998); Beverly Enters. —Fla., Inc. v. Spilman, 661 So.2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), review denied, 668 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1996).

For this reason, the judgment of dismissal below is reversed and the cause remanded for further appropriate proceedings.2

1. We reject the defendants' claim that Loucks v. Adair, 312 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 33 (Fla.1976), supports their position. Loucks held only that, because of sovereign immunity, a state agency could not be liable for a violation of the Mental Health Act even though it contained a section similar to 393.13(5). (Furthermore, even on that issue, Loucks is called into question by Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1982).)

The appellees' reliance on similar statutes from other jurisdictions which provide no private cause of action is also misplaced, see, e.g., Ala.Code § 38-9C-8 (1992); Iowa Code § 225C.29 (1994); Kan. Stat. § 39-1802 (1998); see also Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981), because none contain anything like 393.13(5). (Most of the contrary cases cited by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hudson v. City of Riviera Beach
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • November 13, 2013
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • December 1, 2011
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • November 13, 2013
    ...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, 2D04-1.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 10, 2004
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT