DANIEL PATRICK GRANEY, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WILSON C. RIPPY, JR., M.D., ET AL., DEFENDANTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medical Mediation Panel Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause was submitted to this court upon certified question under Fla.App. Rule 4.6. The questions presented are:
1. DOES THE JURISDICTION OF A MEDICAL MEDIATION PANEL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE AFTER EXPIRATION OF 120 DAYS FROM THE DATE A CLAIM IS FILED WHEN:
(a) THE CLERK HAD NOT SET A HEARING DATE;
(b) THE 120 DAYS PERIOD HAD EXPIRED;
(c) NONE OF THE PARTIES HAD REQUESTED AN EXTENSION WITHIN THE 120 DAYS PERIOD; AND (d) ALL OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION HAD STIPULATED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE MEDIATION HEARING, SUCH STIPULATION BEING ENTERED INTO SUBSEQUENT TO THE RUNNING OF THE 120 DAYS PERIOD?
2. IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION # 1 IS IN THE NEGATIVE, ARE THE PARTIES BOUND BY THE TIME REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 768.133(3), FLORIDA STATUTES, 1975, OR THE TIME SET OUT IN THE STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WHICH TO MEDIATE THE CLAIM?
3. IF THE PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE STATUTORY TIME REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN # 2 ABOVE, IS THE MAXIMUM STATUTORY LIMIT FOR MEDIATION 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE CLAIM IS FILED OR 10 MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE CLAIM IS FILED?
In our view the questions certified do not meet the prerequisites of the aforesaid rule. Since the supreme court has recently adopt ed Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure,1 it now appears that sufficient guidance is available to the trial court to make its own determination of the questions.
Accordingly, we decline to answer the questions.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur. GRIMES, J., dissents with opinion.
. In re The Florida Bar (In re Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure), 348 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1977).
GRIMES, Judge,
dissenting.
I would go ahead and answer the questions because I do not believe that the Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure adopted subsequent to the events involved in this case constitute “controlling precedent” for purposes of Fla.App. Rule 4.6a dealing with certified questions.
I respectfully dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raedel v. Watson Clinic Found., Inc., 360 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…represents the supreme court’s construction of Section 768.44(3) and thus is indicative of the supreme court’s position. We so observed in Febles v. Abercrombie, Nos. 77-2016 and 77-2012, 358 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accord, Graney v. Rippey, 349 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Aldana v. Holub, 354 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In cases decided prior to the effective date of the Rules of Medical Mediation Procedure, Florida courts have reached results consistent with Rule 20.190. Two recent decision…
Authorities Cited
- In re the Fla. Bar. in re Rules of Med. Mediation Procedure, 348 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1977)