Cintron v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2D12–494.,2D12–494.
• Citation: 112 So.3d 685
• Parties: Herbert CINTRON and Molly Cintron, individually and as parents and next friends of their minor child, Saleena Cintron, Appellants, v. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

112 So.3d 685

Herbert CINTRON and Molly Cintron, individually and as parents and next friends of their minor child, Saleena Cintron, Appellants,

v.ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 2D12–494.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 3, 2013.

Charles M. Schropp and Charles P. Schropp of Schropp Law Firm, P.A., Tampa; and Dennis G. Diecidue of the Diecidue Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Kimberly A. Ashby of Akerman Senterfitt, Orlando; and Kirk S. Davis of Akerman Senterfitt, Tampa, for Appellee.

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Herbert and Molly Cintron, individually and as parents of their daughter, Saleena, appeal a final summary judgment in their action against St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. In their complaint, the Cintrons claim that St. Joseph's Hospital was liable for damages under section 395.1041, Florida Statutes (2004), because the hospital's medical staff refused to treat their young daughter when she was suffering an acute asthma attack. St. Joseph's Hospital obtained summary judgment by convincing the trial court that, in such an “anti-dumping” case, it should be free from liability and that its nurses and other employees should be personally liable for the statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. We reverse because the Cintrons sued the hospital on a theory of respondeat superior. The hospital did not move for summary judgment as to its potential vicarious liability, and thus the only theory presented by the Cintrons in this case never actually has been resolved in the trial court.

The Cintrons allegedly took their daughter to the emergency room at St. Joseph's Hospital on two occasions during the evening of February 14, 2005, seeking treatment for her asthma attack. Each time the hospital's staff refused to treat her. Only when she was taken by ambulance on a third occasion was she admitted to the hospital.

In October 2007 the Cintrons filed this action. The complaint was a very short complaint, naming only the hospital and alleging that it was liable under the statute for the failure of its staff to treat the child. St. Joseph's Hospital initially took the position that this claim was a medical malpractice claim subject to all of the presuit requirements and the statute of limitations applicable to such a claim. Both the trial court and this court rejected that theory. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. v. Cintron, 998 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

The hospital did not move to dismiss the short complaint for failure to state a cause of action. When it answered the complaint in April 2008, it did include among its sixteen affirmative defenses a defense that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. This was a generic defense with no explanation as to why the hospital believed the complaint was defective. No party ever set this defense for a pretrial hearing.

More than three years later, the hospital moved for summary judgment “based on failure to state cause of action” under the statute. In its motion, the hospital accurately observed that section 395.1041(5)(b) states that “[a]ny person who suffers personal harm as a result of a violation of this section or the rules adopted hereunder may recover, in a civil action against the responsible hospital administrative or medical staff or personnel, damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and other appropriate...