Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Bouchoc
| Decision Date | 16 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | 69493 and 69421,Nos. 69230,s. 69230 |
| Citation | 514 So.2d 52 |
| Parties | FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, Petitioner, v. George BOUCHOC, et al., Respondents. WINTER HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, Respondent. Elmer MAURER, M.D., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Joe N. Unger of the Law Offices of Joe N. Unger, P.A., Miami, Marguerite H. Davis of Swann & Haddock, P.A., Tallahassee, for Florida Patient's Comp. Fund.
Betsy E. Gallagher of Kubicki, Bradley, Draper, Gallagher & McGrane, Miami, for Bouchoc and St. Francis.
Julian Clarkson and Richard Nichols of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for Edna Peterson.
James C. Blecke, Miami, for Pierre Grondin, M.D.
Janet W. Adams and Jeffrey C. Fulford of Adams, Hill, Fulford and Morgan, Orlando, for Winter Haven Hosp., Inc.
Julian Clarkson of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for Elmer Maurer.
We have for review two cases of the district courts of appeal which conflict with each other on the same point of law. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. 1
A more detailed recitation of the underlying facts may be found in the district courts' opinions. For our purposes, it is sufficient to recognize that Maurer, Bouchoc and the hospitals were all unsuccessful defendants in medical malpractice actions in which the jury verdicts each exceeded $100,000. 2 In addition to the amounts of the jury verdicts, the trial courts awarded attorneys' fees to the prevailing plaintiffs pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981). The pertinent portion of section 768.56 provided that:
Except as otherwise provided by law, the court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party in any civil action which involves a claim for damages by reason of injury, death, or monetary loss on account of alleged malpractice by any medical or osteopathic physician, podiatrist, hospital, or health maintenance organization.
§ 768.56(1), Fla.Stat. (1981). 3
Maurer, Bouchoc and the hospitals were each members of the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund (Fund). The Fund was instituted in 1975 as a nonprofit entity to provide medical malpractice protection to the physicians and hospitals who joined it. See Department of Insurance v. Southeast Volusia Hospital District, 438 So.2d 815 (Fla.1983), appeal dismissed, 466 U.S. 901, 104 S.Ct. 1673, 80 L.Ed.2d 149 (1984). The Fund acts as a vehicle to pool and spread the risk of loss among all health care providers in Florida through yearly assessments. The creation of the Fund was the legislature's response to the medical malpractice insurance crisis which occurred in Florida during the mid-1970's. See ch. 75-9, Laws of Fla.
The provisions of the law creating the Fund which are pertinent to our consideration are:
(2) LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.--
....
(b) A health care provider shall not be liable for an amount in excess of $100,000 per claim or $500,000 per occurrence for claims covered under subsection (3) if the health care provider had paid the fees required pursuant to subsection (3) for the year in which the incident occurred for which the claim is filed, and an adequate defense for the fund is provided, and pays at least the initial $100,000 or the maximum limit of the underlying coverage maintained by the health care provider on the date when the incident occurred for which the claim is filed, whichever is greater, of any settlement or judgment against the health care provider for the claim in accordance with paragraph (3)(e)....
....
(3) PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND.--
(a) The fund.--There is created a "Florida Patient's Compensation Fund" for the purpose of paying that portion of any claim arising out of the rendering of or failure to render medical care or services, or arising out of activities of committees, for health care providers or any claim for bodily injury or property damage to the person or property of any patient, including all patient injuries and deaths, arising out of the insureds' activities for those health care providers set forth in subparagraphs (1)(b) 1., 5., 6., and 7. which is in excess of the limits as set forth in paragraph (2)(b). The fund shall be liable only for payment of claims against health care providers who are in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (2)(b), of reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the payment of claims, and of fund administrative expenses.
The issue in these cases is whether the attorneys' fees should be paid by the Fund or by the health care providers. 4 The Fund argues that the prevailing plaintiffs' attorneys' fees are not part of the "claim arising out of the rendering of or failure to render medical care or services" as required by section 768.54(3)(a). The health care providers argue that attorneys' fees are within the term "arising out of" which contemplates claims originating from, incident to or having some connection with the claim of medical malpractice. See Red Ball Motor Freight v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 189 F.2d 374 (5th Cir.1951). Both arguments have some logic. However, when the purpose for which the Fund was created is considered, we think that the statutory language is properly construed to require the Fund to pay the attorneys' fees.
The Fund was established to permit health care providers to protect themselves from the consequences of catastrophic verdicts in malpractice cases. Under the statutory scheme, by paying the requisite fees to the Fund, the health care providers limit their exposure to $100,000. They are required to either purchase underlying liability insurance in the amount of at least $100,000 or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility to pay $100,000 as outlined in the statute. It is unreasonable to believe that the legislature would have intended that the health care providers be held responsible for the amount of attorneys' fees over and above the $100,000 when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Haynes
...concerning the attorney's fee issue in favor of appellees. See Wilson v. Wasser, 562 So.2d 339 (Fla.1990); Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So.2d 52 (Fla.1987); Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Lamm, 218 So.2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So.2d 529 This brie......
-
Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Sitomer
...taxed against the Member in any suit defended by the Staff Fund and all interest on the entire amount of any judgment.... Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So.2d 52 (Fla.1987), the court affirmed Bouchoc and quashed Maurer in part, the essential holding, as it pertains here, being that the Fund is liabl......
-
Lower Florida Keys Hosp. Dist. v. Littlejohn
...is no such insurance, the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund is liable for the said attorney's fees award. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So.2d 52 (Fla.1987). It is, therefore, plain that under Bouchoc, the attorney's fee award against the defendant Hospital and the de......
-
Tucker v. State Dept. of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Com'n
...1 Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Maurer, 493 So.2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), quashed other grounds, Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Bouchoc, 514 So.2d 52 (Fla.1987); Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association of St. Lucie County v. Loeb, Rhodes, Hornblower & Co., 473 So.2d 6......