EVELYN F. SANTELLI AND PATRICK SANTELLI, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
VICTOR M. AREAN, M.D., DAVIS, REILLY, AREAN, THOMPSON & ECHEVARRIA, M.D.S, PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., RALPH A. DEMATTEIS, M.D., AND RALPH A. DEMATTEIS, P.A., AND ST. ANTHONY'S HOSPITAL, INC., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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.
In this medical malpractice case, the Santellis challenged a trial court order compelling arbitration, arguing that Florida's arbitration statutes violated constitutional rights to court access and jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the order, distinguishing the case from prior decisions by finding that because the Santellis themselves requested arbitration rather than the defendants, they voluntarily subjected themselves to any statutory limitations.
The court affirmed the trial court's order compelling arbitration as to the defendants who accepted the offer, holding that sections 766.207 and 766.209 are not unconstitutional as applied where the claimants voluntarily requested arbitration and thereby voluntarily subjected themselves to the statutory limitations.
[1] A motion to compel arbitration may be affirmed when defendants timely accept a claimant's offer of voluntary binding arbitration.
[2] Statutes governing voluntary binding arbitration in medical malpractice actions are not unconstitutional as applied when claimants voluntarily request arbitration, thereb…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendants who filed the motion, Victor M. Arean, M.D., Davis, Reilly, Arean, Thompson & Echevarria, M.D.s, and Pathology Associates, P.A., timely accepted Mr. and Mrs. Santelli's offer of voluntary binding arbitration, and therefore, we affirm the trial court's order compelling arbitration as to these defendants only”
Establishes the core holding that the court affirms the arbitration order based on timely acceptance of the plaintiffs' own arbitration offer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Santellis filed a medical malpractice action against several defendants including Dr. Arean and pathology associates. The Santellis requested volu…
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 Voluntary Binding Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Santelli, challenge the trial court’s order granting a motion to compel arbitration. We find that the defendants who filed the motion, Victor M. Arean, M.D., Davis, Reilly, Arean, Thompson & Echevarria, M.D.s, and Pathology Associates, P.A., timely accepted Mr. and Mrs. Santelli’s offer of voluntary binding arbitration, and therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order compelling arbitration as to these defendants only.
Although Mr. and Mrs. Santelli actually requested voluntary binding arbitration pursuant to sections 766.207 and 766.209, Florida Statutes (1989), they now complain that even if the defendants timely accepted their offer to arbitrate, the limitations and damage caps imposed upon them by electing arbitration are unconstitutional. The Santellis rely on the recent decisions of HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. v. Branchesi, 597 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and University of Miami v. Echarte, 585 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In these cases, which are currently on appeal in the Florida Supreme Court, the district courts held that sections 766.207 and 766.209 violate the constitutional provisions providing right of access to the courts, and in Bran-chesi the court also found the statutes violate the constitutional right to jury trial. The courts in Branchesi and Echarte found that the subject statutes were unconstitutional as applied to specific facts where the defendant physician requested the arbitration and thereby subjected the claimants to certain limitations whether they accepted or rejected the offer to arbitrate. The courts did not find sections 766.207 and 766.209 facially invalid.
We find, however, that the statutes in question are not unconstitutional as applied to the specific facts in this case. Contrary to Branchesi and Echarte, the claimants in our case requested arbitration, and thereby voluntarily subjected themselves to certain limitations,1 even though nothing in sections 766.207 and 766.209 required them to do so. We, accordingly, affirm the trial court’s order granting the motion to compel arbitration.
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur. . By so doing, Mr. and Mrs. Santelli may arguably be estopped from attacking the subject statutes by voluntarily triggering the very limitation provisions they now challenge. Cf. Mertz v. Lake Padgett Estates East Road & Bridge District, 487 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Univ. OF Miami v. Echarte, 585 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- HCA Health Servs. OF Fla., Inc. v. Gus Branchesi, 597 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Esther M. Mertz for the Estate of Harold E. Mertz v. Lake Padgett Ests. E. Rd. & Bridge Dist., 487 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)