5th DCA Says No Presuit Needed Against Psychiatric Facility
By Kelley Uustal Healthcare Law Update, October 24th, 2011
The Fifth District Court of Appeal recently reversed a final summary judgment entered in favor of a psychiatric facility, finding that the plaintiff had no obligation to engage in the presuit normally required in medical malpractice cases.
James Joseph, a former patient of University Behavioral Center (“UBC”), filed suit against the psychiatric facility after he was allegedly punched by another patient. The attack caused Joseph to suffer a detached retina and, eventually, the loss of his left eye. L.F., the individual who threw the punch, was a fellow patient at UBC. Joseph alleged that, prior to the attack, L.F. had bullied and punched him on numerous prior occasions, causing Joseph to ask UBC to separate the two. UBC refused. Joseph alleged that UBC was negligent in failing to protect him.
UBC filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Joseph’s claim was for medical negligence, and that Joseph had failed to comply with the presuit requirements of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act, including the two-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and granted UBC’s motion. Joseph appealed, contending that his claim was for ordinary negligence. The 5th DCA agreed with Joseph and reversed.
In reversing the summary judgment, the Court held that the claim did not arise “out of the rendering of medical care by licensed health care providers subject to the prevailing professional standard of care,” and stated that “the fact that a wrongful act occurs in a medical setting does not necessarily mean that it involves medical practice.”
Joseph v. University Behavioral LLC., et. al., __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
Entry Filed under: Medical Malpractice,Presuit
Print This Post



1 Comment Add your own
1. Peter Dayton MD | October 24th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Technically correct decision as the action was a battery not malpractice. Too bad the plaintiff did not file as a battery leaving the facility immune. I know they would never leave a deep pocket on the table! The irony is that the appeals court split the law! How can you say the facility is liable under a medical liability standard when the action is not by a facility? If you establish duty, breach, causation and damages, how can the plaintiff not follow the procedural rules for med mal and get away with this tort? I think counsel should have filed, followed the law and proceeded as a regular med mal case. Then it is clean and the plaintiff has a real chance at compensation as does counsel. What I do not know is if there is any case law in nursing home litigation on this point? Lawyers out there with free access to Nexus Lexus any ideas????
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed