Waite v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc., 90-2163
| Decision Date | 18 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2163,90-2163 |
| Citation | 582 So.2d 789 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1853 Edwin WAITE and Valerie Waite, Appellants, v. LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gordon J. Evans of Ligman, Martin & Evans, Coral Gables, for appellants.
Dennis F. Ramsey and James M. Tenaglia of McLin, Burnsed, Morrison, Johnson & Robuck, P.A., Leesburg, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment ordering appellants Edwin and Valerie Waite to pay appellee Leesburg Regional Medical Center damages in the amount of $23,762.13. We affirm.
Leesburg Regional Medical Center sued appellants on May 1, 1990, alleging that it had provided medical services for appellant Valerie Waite from November 10, 1988 through March 21, 1989. The trial court ordered that appellant Edwin Waite was also responsible for any debt owed by his wife Valerie Waite based on the common law doctrine of necessaries as stated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Shands Teaching Hospital v. Smith, 497 So.2d 644 (Fla.1986) and this court's opinion in Halifax Hospital Medical Center v. Ryals, 526 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
Appellant argues this court should declare the doctrine of necessaries unconstitutional because it violates equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. However, this court considered and rejected such equal protection arguments in Halifax. While we acknowledged that "[i]t would seem logical that either both spouses or neither (in the absence of express contract) should be liable for the other's medical necessaries" Halifax, 526 So.2d at 1022, we held that until the legislature altered the common law rule, we were bound by the supreme court's holding in Shands.
In Shands, the supreme court agreed with both parties that it was an anachronism to hold the husband responsible for the necessaries of the wife without also holding the wife responsible for the necessaries of the husband. But the court concluded it was not the proper institution to resolve the question of exactly how to modify the common law rule:
The difficulty ... is that ... we are being asked to establish a fixed rule of law that the wife is or is not liable when the issue is one of equity which can only be determined based on the particular equities of a given factual situation. We can easily visualize instances where it would be inequitable to hold either a wife or a husband liable for medical services rendered to a spouse,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connor v. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc.
...643 So.2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which certified conflict with the following district court decisions: Waite v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc., 582 So.2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 592 So.2d 683 (Fla.1991); Heinemann v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, 585 So.2d 1162 (Fla......
-
Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Connor, 93-02766
...equal protection claim was raised by a husband and, once again, the Fifth District rejected the argument. Waite v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc., 582 So.2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 592 So.2d 683 (Fla.1991). The court cited the Shands opinion extensively and expressly held......
-
Gulick v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 91-3826
...act as the grantor of an MQT, and Pollak deals with the trustee's discretion to distribute assets.3 See Waite v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc., 582 So.2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA1991), rev. denied, 592 So.2d 683 (Fla.1991), holding that, pursuant to the common law doctrine of necessaries,......
-
Davis v. Baxter County Regional Hosp.
...803 S.W.2d 930 (1991); see also Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics v. Smith, 497 So.2d 644 (Fla.1986); Waite v. Leesburg Reg. Medical Center, 582 So.2d 789 (Fla.App. 5 Dist.) (1991). In fact, we have recognized the viability of the necessaries doctrine on a number of occasions. Medlock, 304 ......