CONNIE ANDREW AND WILLIAM ANDREW, INDIVIDUALLY, AND CONNIE ANDREW AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DUSTIN ANDREW, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHANDS AT LAKE SHORE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 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.
Appellants sued Shands healthcare facility for negligence by a radiologist. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on a notice provision stating the radiologist was not Shands' employee or agent. The appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint's allegations must be taken as true at the motion to dismiss stage and stated a viable cause of action.
The appellate court held that the complaint stated a cause of action against Shands and reversed the dismissal. At the motion to dismiss stage, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and the court must not speculate about what facts may ultimately be proved at trial. The notice provision does not refute the allegations sufficiently to warrant dismissal.
[1] A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, not the factual issues.
[2] When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must confine its review to the allegations in the complaint and attached documents.
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“'[T]he purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint and not to determine issues of fact.'”
Establishes the proper standard for evaluating motions to dismiss—legal sufficiency only, not factual determination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants' son received care from a radiologist at Shands At Lake Shore facility. Appellants alleged the radiologist was Shands' employee, servant, a…
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 Motion To Dismiss Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, Connie Andrew and William Andrew, individually, and Connie Andrew as personal representative of the Estate of Dustin Andrew, appeal the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice counts 1 through 4 of their sixth amended complaint against Appellee Shands At Lake Shore, Inc. (“Shands”). Because the sixth amended complaint stated a cause of action against Shands, we reverse and remand.
Appellants sued Shands for the alleged negligence of the radiologist who provided care to their son at Shands’ facility. Appellants alleged in part that the radiologist was Shands’ employee, servant, apparent agent, or independent contractor, or acted within the course and scope of his employment through the joint venture between Shands and Appellee University of Florida Board of Trustees. Appellants attached to their sixth amended complaint, among other documents, Shands’ Certification and Authorization form, which contained a notice provision pursuant to section 240.215, Florida Statutes, stating in part that the patient acknowledges that he may receive care from radiologists who are not the employees or agents of Shands. Shands moved to dismiss on the ground that the notice provision refuted Appellants’ counts 1 through 4 and precluded their suit against Shands. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Appellants’ claims with prejudice upon finding that they failed to state a cause of action against Shands.
“ ‘[T]he purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint and not to determine issues of fact.’ “ Brock v. Bowein, 99 So.3d 580, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (internal citation omitted). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must confine its review to the allegations contained in the complaint and any attached documents and must “not ‘speculate as to what the true facts may be or what facts will be ultimately proved in the trial of the cause.’ “ Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bohatka, 112 So.3d 596, 600, 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that the trial court erred by dismissing with prejudice a foreclosure complaint whose allegations contradicted the attached documents, and noting that “the ‘question of the sufficiency *1290of the evidence which the plaintiff will likely be able to produce in a hearing on the merits, is wholly irrelevant and immaterial’ “ and that “[a] motion to dismiss is not a substitute for a summary judgment hearing or a trial”) (internal citations omitted); see also King v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 87 So.3d 39, 40-41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing the order dismissing the hospital from the medical malpractice suit upon finding that the dismissal was premature where the appellant demonstrated a legal relationship between the allegedly negligent doctor and the hospital, and noting that “the allegations in a complaint should be taken as true without regard to the pleader’s ability to prove them” and that “ ‘[t]he relationship between hospital and doctor ... is often unclear and raises a question for the jury’ ”) (internal citations omitted); Leon Cnty. v. Stephen S. Dobson, III, P.A., 917 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“When there are factual issues in dispute, an issue should not be resolved with a motion to dismiss.”). Since the allegations in the sixth amended complaint should be taken as true without regard to Appellants’ ability to prove them, the facts alleged stated a cause of action against Shands. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consumer Rights, LLC v. Bradford Cnty., 153 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Johnson v. Jarvis, 74 So. 3d 168,170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Any factfinding purportedly justifying the dismissal of the prayer for injunctive relief was also procedurally improper. See Andrew v. Shands at Lake Shore, Inc., 127 So. 3d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding “the allegations in the • sixth amended complaint should be taken as true without regard to Appellant’s ability to prove them”); Diplomat Props. Ltd. P’ship v. Tecnoglass, LLC, 114 So. 3d 357, 363 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DC…
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Legacy Parc Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 177 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…obligated to attach evidence proving its status as first mortgagee in its pleadings. “[T]he purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint and not to determine issues of fact.” Andrew v. Shands At Lake Shore, Inc., 127 So. 3d 1289, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting Brock v. Bowein, 99 So. 3d 580, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)). When ruling on a motion to dismiss a complaint, “the trial court must confine its review to the four corners of the complaint, draw all inferences in favor o…
-
Inlet Beach Cap. Invs., LLC v. The Enclave AT Inlet Beach Owners Ass'n, Inc., 236 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…ded) (quoting Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi , 632 So. 2d 1352, 1355 (Fla. 1994) ). In the instant case, the trial court was required to accept as true all of the factual allegations made in the complaints. Andrew v. Shands At Lake Shore, Inc. , 127 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Locker v. United Pharm. Grp., Inc. , 46 So. 3d 1126, 1127-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). In the complaints, appellants alleged that the basis for appellees' voluntary dismissal of the underlying foreclosure action was appellees' lack…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Bohatka, 112 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Brock v. Bowein, 99 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- King v. Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc., 87 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Leon Cnty. v. Stephen S. Dobson, III, P.A., 917 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)