Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel
| Decision Date | 03 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 76844,76917,s. 76844 |
| Citation | 610 So.2d 419 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. S726 PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Edward A. SIEGEL, M.D., Appellee. TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Appellant, v. Armanda M. SITTIG, M.D., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard Smoak of Sale, Smoak, Harrison, Sale, McCloy & Thompson, Panama City, for Psychiatric Associates.
John D. Buchanan, Jr., Laura Beth Faragasso and Diane Wagner Carr of Henry, Buchanan, Mick & English, P.A., Tallahassee, for Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc.
Daniel M. Soloway of McKenzie & Soloway, P.A., Pensacola, for Edward A. Siegel, M.D.
Donna H. Stinson of Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, FitzGerald & Sheehan, P.A., Tallahassee, for Armanda M. Sittig, M.D.
Thomas M. Ervin, Jr. of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Ervin, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Larry Corman of Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, Boca Raton, and Philip M. Burlington of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, amicus curiae for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc.
William A. Bell, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, and John E. Thrasher, General Counsel, Jacksonville, amicus curiae for Florida Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. and Florida Medical Ass'n, Inc.
We have for appellate review Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel, 567 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Sittig v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc., 567 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), in which the First District Court of Appeal invalidated sections 395.011(10)(b) 1, 395.0115(5)(b) 2 Florida Statutes (1987), and 766.101(6)(b) 3, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), of the Florida Constitution, and consolidate the two cases for purposes of this opinion.
The issue before the Court is whether sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b), and 766.101(6)(b), which require a plaintiff bringing an action against someone who participated in a medical review board process to post a bond sufficient to cover the defendant's costs and attorney's fees, before the action can be prosecuted, violate the plaintiff's right of access to the courts. 4 We hold that sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b) and 766.101(6)(b) are unconstitutional because the bond requirement: 1) infringes on the plaintiff's fundamental right of access to the courts without providing an alternative remedy, commensurate benefit or a showing that no alternative method exists for meeting the medical malpractice crisis; and 2) infringes on the plaintiff's due process rights by not being reasonably related to the legislative goal of preventing frivolous lawsuits filed for intimidation or leverage as well as being arbitrary and capricious in application.
Psychiatric Associates is a professional service corporation that is operated by three psychiatrists, Doctors Gill, Neumeyer, and Valentine, who practice at Health Care Services of America Gulf Coast Hospital (Gulf Coast Hospital), a private psychiatric hospital in Okaloosa County. Gill, Neumeyer and Valentine are also members of Gulf Coast Hospital's executive committee, which is in charge of conducting peer review, quality assurance, and regulation of the hospital's medical staff privileges.
In early 1986, Dr. Siegel (Siegel), a psychiatrist, entered into a written employment contract with Gulf Coast Hospital to practice psychiatry at the hospital. By June 1986, Gulf Coast Hospital's corporate owner received reports from staff members, including Valentine, indicating that Siegel may have become an impaired physician. Consequently, Gulf Coast Hospital's corporate medical director instructed Valentine, who was serving as acting chairman of the executive committee and president of the medical staff in Neumeyer's absence, to summarily place Siegel on temporary suspension. Gulf Coast Hospital subsequently required Siegel to undergo evaluation at an impaired physician's clinic. Siegel underwent the evaluation, and the clinic certified that he was not an impaired physician. Upon receiving the clinic's report, Gulf Coast Hospital reinstated Siegel's staff privileges on the conditions that he consult weekly with the hospital's medical director about patient care and submit monthly reports of these consultations to the corporate medical director.
Shortly after his reinstatement, Siegel left his employment at the hospital. On March 4, 1988, he sued Psychiatric Associates alleging that they wrongfully interfered with his contract of employment with the hospital, and that Psychiatric Associates intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him. Following a year of pretrial discovery, Psychiatric Associates moved for a summary judgment claiming that Siegel's claim against them arose out of their executive committee responsibilities for quality assurance, peer review and regulation of physician staff privileges. Thus, Psychiatric Associates argued that sections 395.011, 395.0115, and 766.101 provided them statutory immunity. The trial court denied the summary judgment motion. Psychiatric Associates then filed a motion to require Siegel to post a bond for attorney's fees and costs as required by sections 395.011(10)(b) and 766.101(6)(b). The trial court denied the motion as to attorney's fees on the basis that the bond requirement violated Siegel's right of access to courts under article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution. The trial court, however, granted Psychiatric Associates' motion requiring Siegel to post a bond in order to cover the defendant's costs. Psychiatric Associates appealed the trial court's holding that the bond requirement violated Siegel's right of access. The district court affirmed the trial court's holding and adopted Judge Anstead's dissent in Guerrero v. Humana, Inc., 548 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
In Sittig v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, the district court held that section 395.0115(5)(b), as applied to the facts, violated Dr. Armanda Sittig's (Sittig) right of access to courts. The record shows that in June 1982, Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center (Tallahassee Memorial) hired Sittig to practice obstetrics and gynecology. According to Tallahassee Memorial's bylaws, the hospital's executive committee periodically reviewed Sittig's performance and made recommendations concerning the renewal of her staff privileges. During the summer of 1987, upon recommendation of Tallahassee Memorial's executive committee, the hospital revoked Sittig's obstetrical staff privileges, but left intact her gynecological staff privileges. Sittig filed an initial complaint in July 1987, which the trial court dismissed without prejudice on September 14, 1987. Sittig filed an amended complaint on October 23, 1987, which contained five counts: malicious and willful breach of contract; a violation of the statutory mandates regarding staff privileges found in section 395.0115; tortious interference with Sittig's business relationship with private birth establishments; and two counts of maliciously harming Sittig's reputation in the community and her ability to practice medicine.
Pursuant to section 395.0115(5)(b), Tallahassee Memorial filed a motion requesting that Sittig post a bond or other security in an amount sufficient to pay the hospital's costs and attorney's fees in the eventuality that Tallahassee Memorial prevailed in the action. The trial court held a hearing on the constitutionality of the bond requirement and determined that section 395.0115(5)(b) did not violate Sittig's right of access to the courts. Following its determination, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of bond. During the evidentiary hearing, the trial court examined Sittig's affidavit claiming an inability to post the bond, her 1986 and 1987 tax returns, testimony about her financial situation, and a lawyer's affidavit regarding the defendant's potential costs and attorney's fees in defending this case. On October 21, 1988, the trial court issued an order staying Sittig's action until she posted a $30,000 bond.
The record shows that no activity took place in the case for over a year. On October 27, 1989, Tallahassee Memorial filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. In response to the motion to dismiss, Sittig filed a pleading which alleged that her continued inability to post the bond provided good cause for lack of prosecution. On December 4, 1989, the trial court rejected Sittig's pleading and ordered the case dismissed.
Sittig appealed the trial court's dismissal to the district court. The district court did not address the issue of the trial court's dismissal, but rather reversed on the grounds that section 395.0115(5)(b) as applied in the case violated Sittig's right of access to the courts.
Sections 395.011(10)(b), 395.0115(5)(b), and 766.101(6)(b) share common language which requires a plaintiff to post "a bond or other security ... in an amount sufficient to pay the costs and attorney's fees" before any responsive pleading is due. Sec. 395.011(10)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987). This bond requirement creates a financial precondition before a claimant may bring an action against a person who participated in a medical review board proceeding. The legislature enacted the bond requirement pursuant to recommendations made by the Governor's Task Force on Medical Malpractice (Task Force), which was formed to study the growing medical malpractice crisis in the state. 5 In 1985, the Task Force issued a report titled Toward Prevention and Early Resolution which found the existence of a medical malpractice crisis, and made a number of findings concerning the causes of the malpractice crisis and some possible problem-solving recommendations.
The Task Force suggested that hospitals appoint medical staffs to review the performance and competence of staff physicians. In order to encourage candid review and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc.
...the statute can pass constitutional muster, both prongs of the latter portion of the Kluger test must be met. Psychiatric Assocs. v. Siegel, 610 So.2d 419, 423 (Fla.1992); Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So.2d 1080, 1088 In the preamble to the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1975, the le......
-
State v. Robinson
...under article V, section 3(b)(1) a district court decision holding a statute unconstitutional as applied); Psychiatric Assocs. v. Siegel, 610 So.2d 419, 421-23 (Fla.1992) (same). For the reasons explained below, we hold that the Act, which requires certain defendants to register as sexual p......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hassen
...to the courts sharply restricts the imposition of financial barriers to asserting claims or defenses in court." Psychiatric Assoc. v. Siegel, 610 So.2d 419, 424 (Fla.1992) (emphasis added). See also G.R.B. Inv., Inc. v. Hinterkopf, 343 So.2d 899, 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) ("[R]equiring payment......
-
Don's Sod Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, State of Fla.
...court had jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the statute. See Sec. 86.011, Fla.Stat. (1993). In Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel, 610 So.2d 419 (Fla.1992), a suit was filed without a bond, which was required by the applicable statute. The district court of appeal 1 ruled that ......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...1973).219. 36 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1948) (en banc).220. Id. at 420. 221. Kluger, 281 So. 2d at 4 (quoting Rotwein, 36 So. 2d at 421).222. 610 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1992).223. Id. at 421.224. Id. at 424.225. Id. (footnote omitted).226. Id. at 425.227. 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993).228. See supra text ac......
-
Medical malpractice caps move from the legislature to the courts: will they survive?
...Justice Shaw also disagreed with the majority opinion because it departed from the court's decision in Psychiatric Associates v. Siegel, 610 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1992), receded from on other grounds, Agency for Health Care Administration v. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., So. 2d 1239 (F......