Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 77-1343
Decision Date | 25 October 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-1343,77-1343 |
Parties | WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., Appellant, v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, a/k/a Hollywood Memorial Hospital, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John L. O'Donnell, Jr., of Helliwell, Melrose & DeWolf, Orlando, for appellant.
John A. Leklem, of Anderson & Leklem, P. A., Orlando, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a third party complaint against a hospital with prejudice. Appellant is the defendant/third party plaintiff. The hospital is the appellee/third party defendant. In this case the original plaintiff sued the defendant, Walt Disney World Co., for an injury on the premises of the defendant resulting from defendant's alleged negligence. The defendant filed a third party action against Memorial Hospital alleging the plaintiff's injuries were aggravated by negligent treatment in the hospital. The complaint sought indemnity and contribution from the third party defendant. The trial court dismissed the third party action against the hospital on the grounds that third party claimant did not allege that the action had been the subject of a prior mediation proceeding before an appropriate medical liability mediation panel in accordance with § 768.44, Fla.Stat.
A claim for indemnity in a situation similar to this was the subject of Supreme Court consideration in Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.2d 703 (Fla.1977). Under the clear dictates of that decision, there is no valid claim for indemnity between these parties.
The contribution claim is a distinct matter. This claim is based on § 768.31, Fla.Stat., known as the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act. This statute creates a new cause of action for contribution among joint tortfeasors. The parties have apparently assumed the validity of this contribution claim. We expressly do not decide this issue. Our decision now relates only to the requirements of § 768.44 Fla.Stat., and whether mediation is required thereby.
The appellee Hospital argues that this is a medical malpractice case within the meaning of § 768.44, Fla.Stat., which provides in relevant part as follows:
"Any person or his representative claiming damages by reason of injury, death or monetary loss on account of alleged malpractice by any medical or osteopathic physician . . . or health maintenance organization against whom he believes there is a reasonable basis for a claim shall submit such claim to an appropriate medical liability mediation panel before that claim may be filed in any court of this State."
Since the malpractice claim against the Hospital was not submitted to a medical mediation panel, it is urged that the trial court correctly dismissed the cause.
The appellant argues that this is not the type of claim ever intended to be mediated, that it is not a malpractice claim because it is a statutory claim for contribution and that constitutional safeguards prohibit dismissal of the action.
The policy of the State of Florida is that announced by the Legislature in the statute now designated as § 768.44, Fla.Stat. The purpose of this statute was to meet a crisis in the area of medical care. The preamble of the statute initially enacted in Chapter 75-9, Laws of Florida, was to the effect that the prohibitive cost of medical malpractice insurance might well cause doctors to curtail their practices, retire or practice defensive medicine at increased cost to the citizens of Florida. In recognition of this problem of crisis proportion, the Florida Legislature established certain barriers to the bringing of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Virginia Ins. Reciprocal v. Walker, 1D99-2426.
...in Wendel. The better view was expressed in the earlier opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). There the court affirmed the dismissal of a contribution claim because the plaintiff had not pursued the m......
-
Walker v. Virginia Ins. Reciprocal
...The Fourth District also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the district court's previous decision in Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), also applied to the presuit screening process in chapter 766, Florida Statutes. In Walt Disney, the Fourth......
-
Wendel v. Hauser
...Florida Statutes, but he did not file his complaint until December 2, 1994.1 Appellant argues that Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), applies to the presuit process in chapter 766, Florida Statutes. We disagree. The language in section 766.106, Fl......
-
Davis v. Acton
...underlying claim of professional negligence. The third-party civil complaint was properly dismissed. See Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The point raised by appellee's cross-appeal has been considered and found to be without The order appealed ......