New Release by Attorney Don Fountain: Advocating for Consumer Safety.

NO RECOVERY NO FEES

New Release by Attorney Don Fountain: Advocating for Consumer Safety.

Purchase Now
Thu 1st Aug | 2024

The Week In Torts – Cases from July 19, 2024

Personal Injury The Week in Torts BY

We need more time!

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 49, NUMBER 29

JULY 19, 2024

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REJECTING MAGISTRATE’S RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT APPELLANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR TRIAL DE NOVO AFTER A NON-BINDING ARBITRATION -– THE PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING TRIAL DE NOVO IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 1.090(b), GIVING THE COURT AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXTENSION UPON A TIMELY REQUEST

The City of Naples v. Wolff, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1481 (Fla. 6th DCA July 12, 2024):

The City of Naples appealed a final judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiffs.

After the arbitrator served its decision on the parties subsequent to a trial court ordered non-binding arbitration, the City filed a motion seeking a 30-day extension of the deadline to request a trial de novo.

The trial court referred the City’s motion to a magistrate who recommended granting the motion and extending the deadline. The City then filed its motion for trial de novo within the allowed time frame. After, though, the trial court rejected the magistrate’s recommendation and ruled that it lacked the authority to extend the deadline under rule 1.090.

Section 44.103(5) provides that a non-binding arbitration decision shall be final unless a request for a trial de novo is filed within the time provided by the rules promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court.

Rule 1.820(h) sets a deadline of 20 days after service of the decision for a party to file a motion for trial de novo. If the motion is not filed within the deadline, the presiding judge enters final judgment in accordance with the award.

In establishing the deadline for a party to request a trial de novo after non-binding arbitration, the legislature in section 44.103(5) expressly deferred to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court which included the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

As a result, the procedure for requesting a trial de novo after non-binding arbitration is subject to the provisions of rule 1.090(b). Because the City timely sought the extension within the original 20-day deadline, rule 1.090(b)(1)(A) authorized the trial court to grant an extension of the deadline for cause shown.

The appellate court reversed with instructions for the trial court to consider the City’s request for an extension and to determine whether it had shown good cause to extend the deadline to request the trial de novo.

Week In Torts Button

PRE-INJURY LIFE EXPECTANCY IS ADMISSIBLE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ARBITRATION WHEN UNRELATED TO CAUSATION

North Shore Medical Center v. Navarro, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1465 (Fla. 1st DCA July 10, 2024):

The decedent presented to North Shore Medical Center after suffering a stroke. His condition deteriorated, and he died 13 days after admission. The parties agreed to participate in binding arbitration pursuant to FS section 766.207.

North Shore sought to introduce evidence of the decedent’s reduced life expectancy prior to the alleged malpractice. The plaintiffs argued that the testimony was an attempt to introduce disguised causation evidence which is impermissible in medical malpractice arbitration. The panel ruled to exclude the evidence.

The appellate court reversed.

While case law precludes the admission of life expectancy evidence in situations where a failure to timely diagnose and treat the plaintiff has led to a decrease in life expectancy, in this case, the defendant was not the cause of the decedent’s stroke which brought him to the hospital in the first place.

The defendant had the right for the arbitration panel to consider the decedent’s earning capacity after the stroke and before the negligence. While it is possible that the stroke might not have affected the decedent’s life expectancy or future earning capacity, that was for the arbitration panel to decide.

ERROR TO DENY PUBLIC SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, IN CASE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVIDE STATUTORY NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

Duval County Public Schools v. Jackson, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1478 (Fla. 5th DCA July 12, 2024):

The defendant school district argued that it was immune from suit because the plaintiffs failed to provide notice to the Department of Financial Services as required by section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes.

Ruling that the defendant was correct in its assertion, the trial court affirmed entry of final summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim of sovereign immunity.