ALLEN R. RICHTER AND JOY M. RICHTER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PALM BEACH-MARTIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a second hearing on a motion to dismiss a privacy invasion counterclaim, holding that the trial court properly ruled on the merits despite counsel's failure to appear and did not err in refusing to rehear the motion.
A trial court does not err in ruling on the merits of a motion to dismiss despite counsel's failure to appear at the hearing, and does not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a second hearing on the motion.
The appellee hospital sued appellants for a hospital bill balance. Appellants counterclaimed for invasion of privacy based on the hospital's disclosur…
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 Breach Of Confidentiality Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying the appellants a second hearing on a motion to dismiss. The appellee sued the appellants for the balance due on a hospital bill. In a counterclaim the appellants claimed that the appellee had invaded appellants’ privacy by disclosing to appellee’s attorneys the nature of the treatment for which they were billed. The appellee successfully moved to dismiss the counterclaim. Although we tend to agree with the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, we do not decide that issue since the appellants only attack on appeal the court’s refusal to grant them a second hearing on the motion. The record clearly reflects that the trial court ruled on the merits of the motion to dismiss, notwithstanding the failure of appellants’ counsel to appear at the hearing on the motion. Despite this, appellants now claim that the trial court “defaulted” them because of their counsel’s failure to appear and that the court erred in failing to grant a motion for rehearing and hold another hearing on the motion. We find no merit in appellants’ claim that they were defaulted, and we find no error by the trial court in refusing to conduct another hearing.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the order of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
ANSTEAD, C.J., BERANEK, J., and CO-CALIS, PATRICIA W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wasser v. Kamran Rafizadeh & Metro. Dade Cnty. Fla. Bldg. & Zoning Dep't & Kings Court Homeowners Ass'n, 531 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…nited States v. One 1974 Porsche 911-S Vehicle Identification No. 9114102550, 682 F. 2d 283, 286-87 (1st Cir.1982); Philbrick v. City, of Miami Beach, 147 Fla. 538, 3 So. 2d 144 (1941); Richter v. Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center Hosp., Inc., 434 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Ankers v. District School Bd. of Pasco County, 406 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); § 33-202.3(t)(2), Code of Metro.Dade County Fla. AFFIRMED.…