BRADLEY RUBEN, D.O., PETITIONER,
v.
JACK K. KELLEY AND LINA KELLEY, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A physician sought review of a trial court order excluding a medical mediation panel finding from evidence on constitutional grounds. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the panel's decision, having been filed before the effective date of the Aldana decision declaring the statute unconstitutional, was admissible under Aldana's prospective holding.
The panel's decision was admissible because it was filed before February 28, 1980, the date of the Aldana decision, and therefore fell within Aldana's express prospective exception allowing introduction of decisions filed on or before that date. The trial court's exclusion order must be reversed.
[1] A prior judicial decision declaring a statute unconstitutional may be applied prospectively, allowing for the admission of evidence generated under the statute before the…
[2] A medical mediation panel's finding is admissible in a subsequent circuit court action if the panel's decision was filed with the clerk of court on or before the date a s…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In any case where the written decision of the medical mediation panel has been filed with the clerk of the court on or before the date this decision is filed (Feb. 28, 1980), a party may introduce that decision in evidence.”
Establishes the prospective-only application of Aldana's constitutional holding, allowing pre-February 28, 1980 decisions to remain admissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a medical malpractice complaint against defendant Dr. Ruben on October 13, 1977. A medical mediation panel issued its decision favori…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prospective Application Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
By certiorari petitioner, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an interlocutory order declaring section 768.44 et seq., Florida Statutes (1979), unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1972).
Plaintiffs filed a complaint for medical mediation against defendant Ruben on October 13, 1977. The mediation panel ultimately found two-to-one in favor of the defendant on August 2,1978, clearly within the ten-month limit provided by the mediation statute. On September 17, 1978, the plaintiffs instituted this action in the circuit court. Thereafter plaintiffs made a motion in limine to exclude the panel’s adverse finding from the trial, attacking section 768.44 et seq., as unconstitutional, both on their face and in their application. The motion was granted. Defendant seeks review of this interlocutory order. The Court’s decision in Aldana v. Holub, 381 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1980), declaring the statute unconstitutional, was rendered on February 28, 1980. Subsequently, this Court issued an order to show cause why the petition for certiorari should not be granted in this case.
The arguments of both parties initially centered on the constitutionality of section 768.44 et seq. Clearly, Aldana settled any issues in the instant case concerning the constitutionality of the Medical Mediation Act. However, that holding was expressly prospective in effect. The Court stated:
In any case where the written decision of the medical mediation panel has been filed with the clerk of the court on or before the date this decision is filed (Feb. 28, 1980), a party may introduce that decision in evidence.
381 So. 2d at 238.
At issue in the instant case is the admissibility of the mediation panel’s finding in the circuit court action. However, considering Aldana, exclusion of the panel’s finding must be based on some ground other than the constitutionality of the law in general.
Defendant Ruben asserts that the circuit court’s order excluding the panel’s finding from the trial should be reversed, since the decision was filed with the clerk on August 7, 1978, obviously before February 28, 1980, and therefore is expressly admissible under the cited passage from Aldana. We agree.
The order of the trial judge is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marrero v. Salkind, 433 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ider the appellee’s cross-appeal. During the trial, the judge ruled that the medical mediation findings would not be allowed into evidence. Because these findings were filed prior to February 28, 1980, it was error to exclude them. Ruben v. Kelley, 402 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1981); Aldana v. Holub, 381 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1980). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. . Standard Jury Instruction 5.1(b).…
-
Roberts v. Casey, 413 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…Aldana v. Holub, 381 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1980) the consolidated case of Abel v. Kirschbessner involved a fact pattern consistent with this case — the six months period was violated, but the panel’s jurisdiction was upheld. Similarly in Ruben v. Kelley, 402 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1981), the Florida Supreme Court held admissible at trial the findings of a panel even though the six months time period had been exceeded. See also Stockton v. Knight, 382 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Lustig v. McCormick, 358 So. 2d 844 (F…
-
Young v. John F. Kennedy Mem'l Hosp., 406 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Aldana v. Holub, 381 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1980); Hernandez v. Garwood, 390 So. 2d 357 (Fla.1980) and Ruben v. Kelley, 402 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1981). LETTS, C. J., and ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Aldana v. Holub, 381 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1980)