PP Transition, LP v. Munson
| Decision Date | 13 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D17–136 |
| Citation | 232 So.3d 515 |
| Parties | PP TRANSITION, LP f/k/a Palms of Pasadena Hospital, LP d/b/a Palms of Pasadena Hospital, Petitioner, v. Sharon and Randall MUNSON, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas Saieva and Lesley Ann Stine of La Cava & Jacobson, P.A., Tampa, and Dinah Stein of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, for Petitioner.
Roy D. Wasson of Wasson & Associates, Chartered, Miami, and Marjorie Chalfant of The Nurse Attorney, P.A., University Park, for Respondents.
PP Transition, LP is the defendant in a medical malpractice action brought by Sharon and Randall Munson based on the care Ms. Munson received from the nursing staff at a hospital PP Transition operates. It petitions our court for a writ of certiorari from an order denying its motion to dismiss based on the Munsons' alleged noncompliance with the presuit investigation requirements applicable to medical malpractice cases under chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2013). We grant the petition.
As a part of their attempt to comply with the requirements of chapter 766, the Munsons submitted the affidavit of a California-licensed neurologist who expressed an opinion on the nursing standard of care in Florida. See § 766.203(2) (). PP Transition filed a motion to dismiss for failure to plead a claim or for an evidentiary hearing on the Munsons' compliance with chapter 766, in which it argued—among other things—that the California-based witness was ineligible to offer an opinion on the standard of care applicable to nurses in Florida. See § 766.206(1), (2). After a nonevidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. It gave no explanation for its ruling either on the record or in the subsequent written order denying the motion.
PP Transition's motion required the trial court to "determine" whether the Munsons complied with chapter 766. See § 766.206(1); Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber, 984 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ; Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So.2d 539, 544–45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Archer v. Maddux, 645 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ; cf. Holden v. Bober, 39 So.3d 396, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (). At a minimum, that required the trial court make an express finding as to the Munsons' compliance with the presuit requirements. See Martin Mem'l, 984 So.2d at 663 (). Here, the court summarily denied PP Transition's motion without making any findings as to the Munsons' compliance with chapter 766. This effected a denial of the procedural safeguards of chapter 766 for which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dial 4 Care, Inc. v. Brinson
...make findings regarding whether Brinson conducted a reasonable investigation prior to filing suit. See, e.g., PP Transition, LP v. Munson, 232 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("At a minimum, [the motion to dismiss] required the trial court to make an express finding as to the [claimant's......
-
Univ. of Miami v. Jones
...is required to "make an express finding as to [the claimant's] compliance with the presuit requirements." PP Transition, LP v. Munson, 232 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). The trial court's failure to do so – i.e., by entering an order summarily denying the defendant's motion – "results ......
-
Dontineni v. Sanderson
...denial of the procedural safeguards of chapter 766 for which certiorari relief is appropriate." Id . (quoting PP Transition, LP v. Munson , 232 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ). We do not reach the issue of whether a hospitalist is a "specialty" under section 766.102(5)(a)1. For these r......
-
Dontineni v. Sanderson
... ... procedural safeguards of chapter 766 for which certiorari ... relief is appropriate." Id. (quoting PP ... Transition, LP v. Munson, 232 So.3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d ... DCA 2017)). We do not reach the issue of whether a ... hospitalist is a "specialty" under ... ...