Morris v. Muniz
Decision Date | 27 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 1D14–3987.,1D14–3987. |
Citation | 189 So.3d 348 |
Parties | Tuyuana L. MORRIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shunteria S. McIntyre, deceased, Appellant, v. Orlando S. MUNIZ, M.D., Marianna OB/GYN Associates, Inc., Jackson Hospital, Bay Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Coast Medical Center, and Stephen G. Smith, M.D., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John S. Mills, Courtney Brewer, and Andrew D. Manko of the Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Michael J. Thomas and Kara R. Ottervanger, Pennington, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee Orlando S. Muniz, M.D. and Marianna OB/GYN Associates, Inc.; Carrie M. Roane of Guilday, Schwartz, Simpson, West, Hatch & Lowe, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee Jackson Hospital; Christine Davis Graves and Jessica Zaiger Wallace of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tallahassee for Appellee Bay Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Coast Medical Center; Clifford C. Higby and Kevin Barr of Bryant & Higby, Chartered, Panama City, for Appellee Stephen G. Smith, M.D.
WINOKUR
, J.
The trial court dismissed appellant's wrongful death complaint for failure to satisfy statutory presuit requirements for medical malpractice actions. In granting appellees' motion to dismiss, the trial court found that appellant failed to provide reasonable access to information during presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.205(2), Florida Statutes (2011)
, and that, based on this failure, the record did not support a finding that her medical expert was qualified under sections 766.102(5)(a)2., (6) and (9), Florida Statutes (2011). We find that the record supports the trial court's dismissal and affirm.
Chapter 766 sets forth the statutory scheme for medical malpractice actions, including requirements for presuit investigation. See Baptist Med. Ctr. of Beaches, Inc. v. Rhodin, 40 So.3d 112, 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
(); Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Barber, 638 So.2d 570, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (). Even so, "the medical malpractice statutory scheme must be interpreted liberally so as not to unduly restrict a Florida citizen's constitutionally guaranteed access to courts." See Holden v. Bober, 39 So.3d 396, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278, 284 (Fla.1996) ); but see Largie v. Gregorian, 913 So.2d 635, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) () (quoting Correa v. Robertson, 693 So.2d 619, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ).
The presuit process requires a claimant to investigate whether the defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant and whether such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat
. A medical expert must corroborate such findings in a verified written opinion. Id. The expert must meet the qualifications set forth in sections 766.202(6) and 766.102(5).1 The presuit medical expert opinion is subject to discovery. § 766.203(4), Fla. Stat.
Failure to provide reasonable access to information during presuit "shall be grounds for dismissal of any applicable claim or defense ultimately asserted." § 766.205(2), Florida Statutes
. Likewise, section 766.206(2) requires dismissal of the claim where the court finds that the notice of intent does not contain a verified written medical expert opinion by an expert witness as defined under section 766.202, Florida Statutes. Dismissal for failure to comply with Chapter 766 presuit notice requirements "is an extraordinary sanction justified only in extreme situations." See DeCristo v. Columbia Hosp. Palm Beaches, Ltd., 896 So.2d 909, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; see also De La Torre v. Orta, 785 So.2d 553, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (); Wolford v. Boone, 874 So.2d 1207, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (). A court's determination of the sanction to impose depends both on the circumstances of the case and what, if any, prejudice the opposing party has suffered. Robinson v. Scott, 974 So.2d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ( ).
Appellant in this case repeatedly ignored requests for presuit discovery regarding her presuit expert's statutory qualifications. Despite the parties agreeing to extend the ninety-day presuit period and appellees sending several letters to appellant expressing their concerns regarding the expert's qualifications, appellant filed the medical negligence action without sufficiently responding to appellees' requests for information. Even after the trial judge imposed sanctions, appellant continued to obstruct the presuit process by failing to timely respond to the subpoena duces tecum concerning her expert's background and opinions and by failing to comply with the court's limited discovery order. The court held that because appellant declined to engage in a reasonable presuit investigation of the claim, the record did not support a finding that the expert was qualified under the statute. It further held that appellant's actions were intended to deprive appellees of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in presuit discovery of the medical negligence claims against them. We agree.
The Legislature has made it clear that the special qualifications required for presuit medical experts are essential to the Chapter 766 presuit investigation process.2
Likewise, courts have consistently noted the significance of the presuit expert requirements in determining a claim's legitimacy. See Columbia/JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. P'ship v. Brown, 805 So.2d 28, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
(); Largie, 913 So.2d at 639 () (quoting Kukral, 679 So.2d at 282 ); Wolfsen v. Applegate, 619 So.2d 1050, 1054–55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) ( ). Here, the record contains ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusions that appellant failed to offer sufficient proof of her proffered expert's statutory qualifications, and that appellant's lack of cooperation with appellees' attempts to verify the expert's qualifications merited dismissal under sections 766.205(2) and 766.206(2), Florida Statutes. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the medical malpractice claim, we affirm.
LEWIS
, J., concurs; SWANSON, J., dissents with opinion.
SWANSON
, J., dissenting.
Appellant brought this medical malpractice action alleging that appellees' negligence resulted in the death of appellant's daughter three days after she gave birth to a stillborn child. Appellant complied with the statutory presuit requirements by obtaining written corroboration from a qualified medical expert, Dr. Margaret Thompson. Because Dr. Thompson's affidavit clearly established her qualifications, that should have been the end of the matter. Instead, appellees filed a motion to dismiss appellant's complaint and used court-ordered limited discovery to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to impeach Dr. Thompson's qualifications. After appellant's counsel refused to cooperate in this endeavor, the trial court dismissed appellant's wrongful death action, depriving appellant of her constitutionally guaranteed access to the courts.
Before filing a medical negligence action, a claimant is required to conduct a presuit investigation to determine that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that ... [a]ny named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant" and "[s]uch negligence resulted in injury to the claimant." § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2011)
. Corroboration of those findings by a medical expert must be obtained in writing. Id. A medical expert is defined as "a person duly and regularly engaged in the practice of his or her profession who holds a health care professional degree from a university or college and who meets the requirements of an expert witness as set forth in s. 766.102." § 766.202(6), Fla. Stat. (2011). Specifically, section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2011), provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morris v. Muniz
...an abuse of discretion and without addressing the issue of prejudice, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed. Morris v. Muniz , 189 So.3d 348, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Other district courts of appeal have reviewed a trial court's dismissal of a medical malpractice action for failure to......