EDWIN WAITE AND VALERIE WAITE, APPELLANTS,
v.
LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 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 Waites appealed a judgment requiring them to pay a medical center $23,762.13 for services rendered to Valerie Waite, with Edwin Waite held liable under the common law doctrine of necessaries. The court affirmed, rejecting the Waites' constitutional challenge to the doctrine as an equal protection violation, holding that policy reform is a legislative matter.
The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the doctrine of necessaries does not violate constitutional equal protection guarantees. The court declined to overrule the doctrine, finding that policy reform regarding spousal liability is a matter for the legislature, not the courts.
[1] The common law doctrine of necessaries, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, may hold a husband responsible for medical services rendered to his wife.
[2] A district court of appeal cannot overrule precedent set by the Florida Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“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.”
The Supreme Court's explanation in Shands for why the judiciary cannot resolve the spousal liability question through rule-making, emphasizing that equity depends on particular facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeesburg Regional Medical Center provided medical services to Valerie Waite from November 10, 1988 through March 21, 1989. The medical center sued the…
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 Action For Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
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, just as we can visualize instances where it would be inequitable not to hold either spouse liable for medical services received by the other spouse. Two conclusions are apparent from this decisional quandary. The first is that the issue is one with broad social implications, the resolution of which requires input from husbands, wives, and the public in general. The second conclusion is that, of the three branches of government, the judiciary is the least capable of receiving public input and resolving broad public policy questions based on a societal consensus, (footnote omitted).
Shands, 497 So. 2d at 646. A district court of appeal is without power to overrule supreme court precedent. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973). Social policy and public welfare decisions are for the legislature to make, not courts. The legislature has the ability to hold open hearings to hear from all the diverse interests, not so the courts. We have limited input from interested litigants and are not capable to do the work the legislative branch was devised to do. Unless an act of the legislature violates the greater constitutional law the judiciary is constrained from interfering. No constitutional equal protection violation occurs by requiring a husband to support and protect his wife, as the common law precedent requires. Should the legislature deem a reciprocal obligation desirable it can so provide.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connor v. Sw. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 668 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1995)…, Chief Justice. We have for review Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Connor, 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. 4th DCA 1991); Faulk v. Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital, Inc., 589 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); and Halifax Hos…
-
Heinemann v. John F. Kennedy Mem'l Hosp., 585 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…. Under the common law doctrine of necessaries, appellant is not liable for the husband’s medical expenses. See Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Smith, 497 So. 2d 644 (Fla.1986). See also Waite v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc., 582 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Accordingly, the final summary judgment in favor of appellee is reversed and we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. DELL, GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Sw. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Connor, 643 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…he Fifth District rejected the husband’s equal protection argument. Three years later, another 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 that “[n]o constitutional equal protection violation occurs by requiring a husband to support and protect his wife, as the c…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Smith, 497 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1986)
- Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Ryals, 526 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)