Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesCASE ON POINT: Villa Maria Nsg. & Rehab. Ctr. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., (4/8/2009)-FL
ISSUE: It is not unusual for nursing home patient's to develop bed sores. In fact, it is often the case. However, in this unusual Florida case a nursing home patient had recurring bed sores for which she was hospitalized several times, only to return to the nursing home where she resided. The patient ultimately filed suit against the nursing home for the injuries caused by the nursing home in failing to manage her condition. The nursing home settled the suit brought by the patient against it for $325,000. However, the nursing home subsequently brought suit against the hospital to which she was sent for treatment. Unfortunately, the nursing home failed to comply with state law in that it failed to give the hospital, which was the subject of its suit, due notice as required by state law. Despite the fact that the release signed by the patient included the release of the hospital from any liability, the nursing home brought suit against the hospital to recover what it had paid.
CASE FACTS: Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (Villa), operates a nursing home. In June, 1999, Betty Sanders was admitted as a patient. When she was discharged on June 30, she had a sacral wound. From July 6, to July 28, 1999, Sanders was admitted three times as a patient to a hospital operated by South Broward Hospital District. Her third visit ended with her discharge on August 3, 1999. The nursing home contended that she should not have been discharged because her sacral wound required "inpatient wound care and consultation, among other courses of treatment." As a result of injuries arising from the sacral wound, Sanders sued the nursing home under a section of Florida law which allows a cause of action for negligence or for a violation of rights specified in Florida law. In December 2004, the nursing home paid Sanders $325,000 to settle the suit. In return, Sanders executed a release which provided that she released the nursing home, the hospital and others for any and all damages "resulting or arising out of the incident occurring on or about 6/14/99 to 6/30/ 99 at [the nursing home] including future developments thereof or in any way growing out of or connected with said transaction and/ or incidents, including the subject sacral/buttock wound(s)." In March 2006, the nursing home sued the hospital "in their treatment and care" of Sanders. The hospital moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds. The trial court granted the hospital's motion. The nursing home appealed.
COURT'S OPINION: The District Court of Appeals of Florida reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the case "with prejudice" and remanding the case back to the trial court for the entry of a final judgment dismissing the case "without prejudice" (meaning that the nursing home could bring a new suit), for failure of the nursing home to comply with Florida law.
LEGAL COMMENTARY: Compliance with the notice requirement of Florida law was a condition precedent to the lawsuit against the hospital. The notice is a "temporary procedural bar to a lawsuit against the State or one of its subdivisions." In this case, the nursing home paid to settle the case in December 2004. At the October 5, 2007 hearing on the motion for summary judgment counsel for the nursing home requested permission to comply with the statutory notice. The trial court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment on October 5 and entered a final judgment against the nursing home on November 9, 2007. At that time the nursing home was within the three year period to file its notice and the four year statute of limitations to file suit against the hospital. The court cited a case in which, before the trial court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment, the nursing home moved for a rehearing and attempted to submit affidavits showing its compliance with the notice requirement. However, in that case, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not have cured such an omission. Before the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff offered no evidence of compliance. After the trial court granted summary judgment, the plaintiff moved for rehearing and attempted to submit affidavits seeking compliance with the notice requirement. In that case the court held that the trial court did not "abuse its discretion in determining that a counter-affidavit presented for the first time on rehearing of a summary judgment is too late." Editor's Note: The court noted that a different rule applies to contractual subrogation, which arises from "a contract between the parties establishing an agreement that the party paying the debt will have the rights and remedies of the original creditor. "The court went on: "In contractual subrogation actions, the statute of limitations runs from the date of the injury to the original "rightholder" and not from the date of payment by the subrogee. "That just might have been better for the hospital.
Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD. is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island firm of A. David Tammello & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who's in the World.
FEED