PEGGY A. SCHATZ AND WILLIAM E. SCHATZ, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
FORREST C. HASLUP, M.D.; ST. JOSEPH'S SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC.; THOMAS M. KERR, M.D.; THOMAS M. KERR, M.D., P.A.; ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC.; AND ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, 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.
Peggy and William Schatz appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claims against hospital defendants after they had settled with the initial tortfeasor who performed the sclerotherapy procedure that caused the injury. The court reversed, holding that the defendants' summary judgment was improper because the plaintiffs presented a written reassignment of rights from the initial tortfeasor that created a disputed issue of material fact.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the defendants' motion should not have been granted because the Schatzes presented a written reassignment of rights signed by Dr. Ailes and Ideal Image that reassigned to the Schatzes all rights they might have inadvertently acquired through the release, creating a disputed issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment.
[1] A separate reformation proceeding is not required when a plaintiff presents a written document signed by an initial tortfeasor reassigning all rights inadvertently acquir…
[2] A release of claims against an initial tortfeasor does not necessarily release subsequent tortfeasors if the injured party presents evidence of a reassignment of rights.
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“Because the record reveals a disputed issue of material fact, we reverse.”
The court's central holding that summary judgment was improper due to the existence of factual disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeggy Schatz underwent sclerotherapy from Dr. Robert J. Ailes at Ideal Image to remove spider veins. Complications arose and she was treated at St. Jo…
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 Assignment Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Peggy A. Schatz and William E. Schatz, the plaintiffs below, appeal a final summary judgment entered against them on their medical malpractice and related claims against Forrest C. Haslup, M.D.; St. Joseph’s Specialty Services, Inc.; Thomas M. Kerr, M.D.; Thomas M. Kerr, M.D., P.A.; St. Joseph’s Healthcare Center, Inc.; and St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc., d/b/a St. Joseph’s Hospital (referred to collectively as the “Defendants”). Because the record reveals a disputed issue of material fact, we reverse.
Ms. Schatz obtained sclerotherapy from Robert J. Ailes, M.D., at Ideal Image, Inc., in order to remove spider veins on her legs. Complications arose and she presented to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Tampa for diagnosis and treatment. Within about two weeks of presenting to the emergency room and being admitted to the hospital, Ms. Schatz’s right leg was amputated.
The Schatzes filed a lawsuit against numerous parties, including, among others, Dr. Ailes, Ideal Image, and the Defendants. The Schatzes settled with Dr. Ailes and Ideal Image. Several years later and shortly before the scheduled trial, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the Schatzes’ release of the claims against Dr. Ailes and Ideal Image also released them. The Defendants argued that Dr. Ailes and Ideal Image were initial tortfeasors and that they were subsequent tortfeasors1 and that the release did not expressly reserve to the Schatzes a right to proceed against them.2
*681In response to and in opposition of the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Schatzes filed a number of items most notable of which was a written irrevocable assignment of rights to the Schatzes that was signed by Dr. Ailes and the president of Ideal Image. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion and entered a final summary judgment in their favor. This appeal ensued.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The trial court concluded that the only recourse available to the Schatzes was to file a separate action for reformation. A separate reformation proceeding was not required in this case. Here, the Schatzes presented a written document signed by Dr. Ailes and Ideal Image in which they reassigned to the Schatzes all rights they might have inadvertently acquired as a result of the release.3 Therefore, summary judgment was improperly entered.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER4 and WALLACE, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rucks v. Pushman, 541 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Gaines v. Lambdin, 541 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Smith v. Harr, 571 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Keith v. B.E.W. Ins. Grp., Inc., 595 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)