He put the ‘puni’ in punitive damages

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 49, NUMBER 22

MAY 31, 2024

IN AN EGREGIOUS CASE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE COURT THANKFULLY AFFIRMS THE AMENDMENT FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN PART (THOUGH REVERSING WHERE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY FOR THE UNDERLYING CLAIM)

Orlando Health v. Mohan, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1112 (Fla. 5th DCA May 24, 2024):

In an extremely egregious case of medical malpractice, where a physician with a long history of drinking on the job and committing “wrong-site” surgeries (operating on the wrong body part or organ) removed the plaintiff’s healthy right ureter instead of his inflamed appendix. After suing for malpractice, the plaintiff sought punitive damages.

The proffer contained evidence of many other malpractice lawsuits, prosecutions, and a substantial number of adverse incidents. It showed that the hiring hospital knew that the physician (Dr. Hegan) had a known propensity as a “heavy alcohol consumer” while on call, and that Orlando Health continued to grant him staff privileges without conditions. As a result of Orlando Health’s failure to provide appropriate oversight and governance to the credentialing and privileging process at South Lake Hospital, the physician operated on the plaintiff and performed a wrong-site surgery.

While the court upheld the amendment for punitive damages on the negligence claim, it did not on the negligent credentialing claim. The actual hospital, South Lake, had filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings directed to the count in the complaint which alleged negligent credentialing against it. It argued that the count was improper as a matter of law because the hospital admitted that the doctor was its employee at the time of surgery and was acting within the course and scope of his employment, making it vicariously liable for his negligence. The court granted that motion.

The appellate court found that Orlando Health was, in fact, involved in the credentialing process. The court found that there was sufficient evidence that the CEO of South Lake Hospital appointed by Orlando Health was intimately involved in the decision to recredential this physician.

However, because Orlando Health argued that since the trial court granted South Lake Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the count of negligent credentialing against it, and because the doctor was an employee of South Lake Hospital, Orlando Health could not be held liable in any fashion for compensatory or punitive damages based upon the alleged negligent credentialing.

When a principal’s liability rests solely on the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal cannot be held liable if the agent is exonerated. Thus, because the court granted South Lake Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the punitive damages claim against Orlando Health on that basis could not stand.