EDWIN TORRES
v.
KENDALL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD., ETC.
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.
Edwin Torres appealed the dismissal of his negligence action against Kendall Healthcare Group arising from an injury sustained when a wheelchair rolled away during a transfer from a diagnostic imaging table. The trial court dismissed the complaint as sounding in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence and for failing to comply with the medical malpractice statute of limitations and pre-suit requirements. The appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged facts supporting an ordinary negligence claim.
The court reversed the dismissal with prejudice, holding that at the pleading stage, the trial court must accept the factual allegations as true and determine whether the complaint states a claim for ordinary negligence. Because Torres alleged sufficient facts to plead his action as one sounding in ordinary negligence rather than medical malpractice, dismissal with prejudice was not warranted.
[1] Whether a claim against a healthcare provider sounds in medical malpractice or ordinary negligence is a fact-intensive analysis that may depend on whether the defendant w…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Whether the kinds of claims presented in ['gray-area'] cases sound in ordinary or medical negligence depends on both the specific circumstances under which the injury occurred and the allegations in the pleadings.”
Florida Supreme Court guidance on the analysis required to distinguish ordinary negligence from medical malpractice claims
Torres was admitted to Kendall Healthcare's facility for diagnostic imaging. After the imaging was completed, he attempted to transfer from the exam t…
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 Medical Malpractice Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP., and Cindy J. Mishcon and Kevin M. Vannatta (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before SCALES, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
LOBREE, J.
Edwin Torres challenges the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of his negligence action against Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd. The operative complaint alleged that Mr. Torres was admitted as a patient to Kendall Healthcare’s facility, where he underwent diagnostic imaging. After the imaging was complete, he attempted to transfer from the exam table to his wheelchair but fell and injured himself when the wheelchair rolled away because his assigned attendant failed to properly secure its brakes. The trial court dismissed the action finding it sounded in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence, and Mr. Torres failed to comply with the statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes, as well as the mandatory pre-suit requirements in chapter 766, Florida Statutes.
In order to determine whether Mr. Torres’ failure to comply with the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims and the pre-suit requirements in chapter 766 is fatal to his claim, a determination needs to be made as to whether this suit is for medical malpractice or ordinary negligence, which is an intensively fact based analysis. See Nat’l Deaf Acad., LLC v. Townes, 242 So. 3d 303, 312 n.6 (Fla. 2018) (“Whether the kinds of claims presented in [“gray-area”] cases sound in ordinary or medical negligence depends on both the specific circumstances under which the injury occurred and the allegations in the pleadings.”) (emphasis added). At this stage of the proceedings, however, our inquiry is limited to the factual allegations within the four corners of Mr. Torres’ complaint, which we must accept as true. See Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d 1282, 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Because Mr. Torres alleged sufficient facts to plead his action as one sounding in ordinary negligence, a dismissal with prejudice was not warranted at this juncture. See McManus v. Gamez, 276 So. 3d 1005, 1009-10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. of Miami v. Bloomer (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- The Nat'l Deaf Acad., LLC v. Townes, 242 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 2018)