AURELIO MARTINEZ AND PAULA MARTINEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
LIFEMARK HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A PALMETTO GENERAL HOSPITAL, 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.
Martinez appealed the dismissal of claims against a hospital for negligent hiring and retention of physicians, arguing these claims fall outside the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations. The court held that hospital liability for negligent selection and retention of medical staff is a duty arising under Florida's medical malpractice statute and therefore subject to the two-year limitations period.
The two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations applies to claims against hospitals for negligent hiring and retention of medical staff because such liability is expressly created by the medical malpractice statute, and the claims are inextricably connected to the underlying negligent medical treatment.
[1] A hospital's duty to assure the competence of its medical staff through careful selection and review is a duty imposed by the medical malpractice statute.
[2] Claims against a hospital for negligent hiring and retention of medical staff are governed by the medical malpractice statute of limitations when the underlying injury ar…
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“All health care facilities, including hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers, as defined in Chapter 395, have a duty to assure comprehensive risk management and the competence of their medical staff and personnel through careful selection and review, and are liable for a failure to exercise due care in fulfilling these duties.”
Establishes the statutory duty of hospitals regarding staff selection and review under Florida Statutes § 766.110
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Guerra performed knee surgery on Aurelio Martinez on October 28, 1987, at Palmetto General Hospital. Martinez's recovery was unsatisfactory, requi…
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 Negligent Hiring, Supervision, And Retention cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their complaint, with prejudice, under the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations. They claim that the medical malpractice statute of limitations does not apply to claims against a hospital for negligent hiring and retention.
Dr. Guerra performed knee surgery on the appellant, Aurelio Martinez, on October 28, 1987. This surgery took place at Life-mark Hospital’s institution, Palmetto General Hospital. The appellant’s recovery was not satisfactory and he underwent a total knee arthroplasty on May 26, 1988.
The appellants filed a medical malpractice action against Drs. Guerra, Bermann, and their medical practice on September 22, 1989. Then, on March 7, 1991, the appellants amended their complaint to include claims against the appellee, who was not named in the original suit.1 These new claims were based upon negligent hiring and retaining of the doctors, fraud and misrepresentation, and intentional tort. It is undisputed that these additional claims were added after the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action had run (two years), but within the statute of limitations for an ordinary tort action (four years).
The appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appellants’ amended complaint. The trial court entered a final order granting the appellee’s motion and granted a dismissal with prejudice as to the amended complaint. This appeal followed.
Within Chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes, entitled “Medical Malpractice and Related Matters”, (Fla.Stat. § 766.101, et seq. 1990), there is a separate section relating to the liability of health care facilities. Florida Statutes § 766.110. The pertinent portion of that provision reads:
(1) All health care facilities, including hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers, as defined in Chapter 395, have a duty to assure comprehensive risk management and the competence of their medical staff and personnel through careful selection and review, and are liable for a failure to exercise due care in fulfilling these duties. These duties shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) the adoption of written procedures for the selection of staff members and a periodic review of the medical care and treatment rendered to patients by each member of the medical staff;
(b) the adoption of a comprehensive risk management program which fully complies with the substantive requirements of s. 395.041 as appropriate to such hospitals size, location, scope of services, physical configuration, and similar relevant factors;
(c) the initiation and diligent administration of the medical review and risk management processes established in paragraphs (a) and (b) including the supervision of the medical staff and hospital personnel to the extent necessary to ensure that such medical review and risk management processes are being diligently carried out.
Each such facility shall be liable for a failure to exercise due care in fulfilling one or more of these duties when such failure is a proximate cause of injury to a patient. The appellants’ claims are barred by the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations. The selection and review of health care personnel is a duty of hospitals under Florida’s medical malpractice statute. Since this case arises out of a breach of that duty, the medical malpractice statute applies.
The appellants’ entire case arises out of negligent medical treatment. Such negligent treatment is both necessary to the claims against the appellee and inextricably connected to them. Therefore, this entire case should be handled under the medical malpractice statute. See Section 95.-ll(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1991).
Affirmed.
. The appellants also filed claims against Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida and its HMO, Health Options, Inc. This court recognized the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal as to Blue Cross/Blue Shield on September 14, 1992. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is no longer a party to this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…isingenuous attempt] to avoid the [pre-suit notice] requirements of Chapter 766 by characterizing the [d]eeedent as a mere ‘business invitee’” because the claim was essentially a medical malpractice action); Martinez v. Lifemark Hosp. of Fla., Inc., 608 So. 2d 855, 856-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (finding that the. case should be handled under the FMMA because plaintiffs asserted claims of negligent hiring and retention, fraud and misrepresentation, and intentional tort were necessarily and inextricably connected t…
-
Stackhouse v. Emerson, 611 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…re negligently performed and, consequently, that an action based thereon is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to malpractice actions, including a claim based on lack of informed consent.2 Martinez v. Lifemark Hospital of Florida, Inc., 608 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Neilinger v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., 460 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Wolfson, 327 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). As noted, appellees’ motions to dismiss contain several…
-
Palms W. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship v. Burns, 83 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…he negligent medical treatment ‘is both necessary to the claims against the [hospital] and inextricably connected to them.’ ” St. Anthony’s Hosp., Inc. v. Lewis, 652 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) citing Martinez v. Lifemark Hosp. of Fla., Inc., 608 So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). The respondent asks that we consider Joseph v. University Behavioral LLC., 71 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), in support of the idea that not every wrongful act involved in a medical setting necessarily implicates medical…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence