MARGAREE SCARLETT, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ETC., APPELLEES
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 held that conflicting evidence regarding notice of a claim requires a trial, but a claim lacking proper notice is barred.
Appellants claimed injury and loss of consortium after a fall in a hospital waiting room, alleging proper notice was given. The hospital presented evi…
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 Notice Of Claim Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Margaree Scarlett fell out of a chair in the waiting room of Jackson Memorial Hospital. She claimed injury and her husband claimed loss of consortium. Appellants alleged that they gave written notice to the Department of Insurance as is required by section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the appel-lees. We affirm in part, reverse in part.
By affidavit and deposition, the secretary of appellant’s attorney stated that she recalled mailing the notification of claim to the insurance commissioner’s office and the hospital, as was routine office procedure. Jackson Memorial Hospital submitted the affidavit of an administrator of the Department of Insurance, stating that no claim by either of the Scarletts had been received.
As in the case of Myers v. Charlotte County, 555 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), faced with such conflicting evidence, the issue must be resolved by the trier of fact, and summary judgment as to Ms. Scarlett’s claim was improper. See Robinson v. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Auth., 545 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
As to the claim of Mr. Scarlett, we affirm the trial court’s decision. The notice that the Scarletts’ attorney claims to have mailed made no mention of a husband or his claim of loss of consortium as required by section 768.28(6). The letter referred only to “Margaree Scarlett,” and made no mention whatsoever of Roland Scarlett. See Orange County v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988). Thus, summary judgment in the hospital’s favor was properly granted as to this claimant.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chandler v. Fred J. Novak, D.D.S., 596 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. The November 19, 1991, opinion of the panel, as corrected, is adopted as the opinion of the en banc court. Scarlett v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 584 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), is overruled. Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ. CORRECTED OPINION FERGUSON, Judge. The issue presented by this appeal is whether a wife, whose medical malpractice claim is wholly derivative of her husband’s claim whi…
-
Emilia Lopez v. Prager, 625 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…intent to sue the State of Florida or HRS is not equivalent to, nor may it be inferred as a notice of intent to sue Dade County. Dade County is a separate defendant and there is a separate cause of action against it. Scarlett v. Public Health Trust, 584 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Neither the Department of Insurance nor Dade County waived the notice requirement of Florida Statutes Section 768.28(6). Waiver of notification to the Department of Insurance cannot be interpreted from the action of Dade County’…
Authorities Cited
- Orange Cnty. v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Early Robinson v. Hillsborough Area Reg'l Transit Auth., 545 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Myers v. Charlotte Cnty., 555 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)