Florida Supreme Court to Weigh Hospital ER Liability
The justices will take up an appeal in a case involving the 2013 death of Suyima Torres, who was taken to Doctors Hospital after she became unconscious following a cosmetic procedure at a clinic.
July 25, 2019 at 03:27 PM
4 minute read
In a case stemming from the death of a woman after a botched cosmetic procedure, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a hospital can be liable for treatment provided by emergency-room doctors who are independent contractors.
The justices said they will take up an appeal in a Miami-Dade County case involving the 2013 death of Suyima Torres, who was taken by ambulance to Doctors Hospital after she became unconscious following a cosmetic procedure at a clinic. Torres, 28, was treated in the hospital's emergency room and intensive-care unit but died several hours later.
Torres' estate filed a lawsuit against the hospital and the emergency-room providers, who were independent contractors and not hospital employees. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled in March that the hospital could not be held liable for treatment provided by the contractors, prompting the estate to ask the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.
The Supreme Court issued a brief order Wednesday accepting the case, though it did not immediately set a date for oral arguments.
Attorneys for the Torres estate argue that the Third District Court of Appeal ruling conflicts with earlier decisions from the neighboring Fourth District Court of Appeal about whether hospitals can be held liable for the actions of independent contractors.
“The question presented is: When a patient presents to a hospital's emergency department, may the hospital delegate its duty to provide emergency medical services to an independent contractor and absolve itself of any liability if those medical services are performed negligently by the contractor?” the estate's attorneys wrote in a May brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the issue. “For Floridians living in Fort Lauderdale and other parts of the Fourth District, the answer is 'no.' For Floridians living in Miami and other parts of the Third District, the answer is 'yes.' For Floridians living in other parts of the state, the answer is uncertain. Given that thousands of Floridians enter emergency departments daily either for themselves or a loved one, this [Supreme] Court should accept jurisdiction, answer the question presented, and provide much needed clarity in Florida law.”
In its March ruling, however, the Third District Court of Appeal pointed to another hospital-related decision from the Second District Court of Appeal, which hears cases in the Tampa Bay region and Southwest Florida. The Third District judges upheld a circuit-court decision that dismissed the Torres estate's claims against Doctors Hospital.
“We believe that expanding Florida hospital liability to include liability for those emergency room medical providers who are hired by hospitals as independent contractors is a public policy decision that is within the purview of Florida's legislative branch,” the Third District ruling said. “Or, to the extent the issue is one of common law, it calls for a Florida Supreme Court decision. We simply are averse to expanding, by judicial dictate, the liability of Florida hospitals, as the estate urges.”
Attorneys for Doctors Hospital made similar arguments last month in a brief filed in the Supreme Court, saying the Third District Court of Appeal “correctly rejected the petitioner's request that the court act as the Legislature and expand hospital liability beyond the bounds of well-settled Florida law.”
The court documents do not provide details about Torres' death. But numerous media reports said she died after receiving buttocks-enhancing injections at a Miami clinic.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 2When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 5Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250