DONALD HANFT, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
CATHERINE VAN HOOSEAR PHELAN, 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.
Dr. Hanft appealed a Third District Court of Appeal decision that reversed a judgment on the pleadings in his favor and remanded for factual findings on when the plaintiff discovered her medical malpractice claim. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court issued conditional rulings rather than definitively declaring a statute invalid.
The Court lacks jurisdiction because the district court did not declare section 95.11(4)(b) invalid; instead, it issued alternative rulings conditioned on factual findings and remanded for further proceedings below. A clear declaration of invalidity is required for mandatory appellate jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
[1] An appeal as of right to the Florida Supreme Court does not lie from a district court of appeal decision that, by ruling in the alternative and remanding for a factual de…
[2] A district court of appeal's ruling on alternative grounds, contingent upon future factual findings, does not constitute a declaration invalidating a state statute for pu…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Article V, section 8(b)(1), Florida Constitution, provides, inter alia, that this Court "shall hear appeals ... from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution."”
Establishes the constitutional basis for mandatory appellate jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhelan sued Dr. Hanft for medical malpractice arising from treatment on August 14, 1976. Hanft moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings based…
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 Statute Of Repose cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
Donald Hanft appeals a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, Phelan v. Hanft, 471 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the district court reversed a judgment entered on the pleadings in favor of Hanft. Our first concern is whether an appeal as a matter of right exists in this case. Hanft claims that we have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(l)(A)(ii). Each of these provisions gives us appellate jurisdiction over, and gives parties the right to appeal, a district court decision declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution.
The district court reversed the judgment on the pleadings with directions to allow evidence to be presented on the issue of when Phelan knew or should have known that she had a cause of action against Hanft.* The court then set out three alternative rulings as to Phelan’s claim depending on how the fact-finder answers this question on remand. First, if the fact-finder determines that Phelan discovered or should have discovered her cause of action within two years of August 14, 1976, the district court ruled that the two-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), would bar her claim. Second, if the fact-finder determines that Phelan discovered or should have discovered her cause of action within four years of August 14, 1976, the district court ruled that the four-year statute of repose would probably bar her claim. Third, if the fact-finder determines that Phelan did not discover and should not have discovered her cause of action until August 4, 1981, the district court held that the statute of repose would unconstitutionally deny Phelan access to the courts. 471 So. 2d at 650.
Article V, section 8(b)(1), Florida Constitution, provides, inter alia, that this Court “shall hear appeals ... from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution.” We find that by ruling in the alternative, and remanding for a factual determination below, the district court has not declared a state statute invalid as article V, section 3(b)(1) contemplates. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. This dismissal of jurisdiction is without prejudice as to any future appeal in this matter should the district court eventually find section 95.11(4)(b) unconstitutional.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ„ concur. ADKINS, J., concurs in result only.
*
Although Hanft’s motion was to dismiss or for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial judge considered facts from Phelan’s deposition. This was error. Extrinsic evidence cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss or on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arthur W. Kush, M.D. v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1992)…ture, not this court, to determine. Carr, 505 So. 2d at 574-75. The district court of appeal in Carr certified conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Phelan v. Hanft, 471 So. 2d 648 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), appeal dismissed, 488 So. 2d 531 (Fla.1986). In Phelan, the court had rejected the defendant’s contention that the plaintiffs malpractice action was barred by the four-year statute of repose where the plaintiff had alleged that the cause of action could not have been discovered wit…
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)…n a defendant asserts such a defense in a motion to dismiss, a trial court must determine the issue as a matter of law based only on the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, assuming the truth [*569] of the facts asserted. See Hanft v. Phelan, 488 So. 2d 531, 532 n. 1 (Fla.1986). C. The Imposition of Sanctions for Defending a Trial Court Order The district court imposed sanctions on Boca Burger both for its conduct in the trial court and its conduct on appeal. The trial court had not imposed sanctions…
-
Carr v. Broward Cnty., 541 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1989)…wborn child, was barred by the statute of repose provisions contained in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1975). In so holding, the district court acknowledged conflict with Phelan v. Hanft, 471 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), appeal dismissed, 488 So. 2d 531 (Fla.1986). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the instant decision and disapprove Phelan. The facts reflect that in December, 1975, petitioner Ellen Carr gave birth to a baby who was diagnosed as suffering from severe…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barbon-Zurita v. State, 471 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)