Bennett Ex Rel. Bennett v. Tenet St. Mary's, Inc.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12478
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Shawn Bennett Jr. sued multiple health care providers for alleged February 2003 meningitis misdiagnosis and contraindicated antibiotic use, resulting in permanent injuries.
- The defendants include Tenet St. Mary's, Inc. d/b/a St. Mary's Medical Center, Dr. Lee Benaroch, Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, and Dr. Brian Kaplan.
- Attorney A. Clark Cone initially represented the Bennetts, diligently handling discovery and depositions before failing to comply with discovery orders and court directives.
- Cone's noncompliance and missed hearings led the trial court to issue sanctions, culminating in dismissal with prejudice of claims against St. Mary's and Benaroch in January 2009.
- The court later denied the Bennetts’ motions to set aside the dismissals, and the case against Palm Beach Gardens and Kaplan proceeded to summary judgment.
- On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Rule 1.540(b)(1) denial, but reversed and remanded for explicit Kozel v. Ostendorf analysis regarding the dismissal sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused Rule 1.540(b)(1) relief denial | Bennett contends relief should be granted due to noncompliance by defense or counsel, or court error. | Kaplan/Palm Beach Gardens argue no abuse; sanctions were warranted and within discretion. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Whether dismissal sanctions against St. Mary's and Benaroch complied with Kozel | Kozel factors require explicit findings; dismissal was punitive against clients due to attorney conduct. | Court appropriately sanctioned conduct and could rely on some cause attributed to client conduct. | Remand for explicit Kozel factor findings is required; potential modification of sanction. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not articulating all Kozel factors | The court failed to analyze all six Kozel factors before dismissing. | Court need only rely on its discretion given the record; not necessary to recite all factors on the record. | Remand for written findings on all Kozel factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993) (establishes six-factor test for sanctions in discovery violations)
- Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492 (Fla.2004) (requires express written findings to justify dismissal sanctions)
- Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983) (dismissal for discovery violations is the most severe sanction)
- Pixton v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., 924 So.2d 37 (Fla.5th DCA 2006) (Kozel analysis required when counsel is involved in sanctions)
- Alvarado v. Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, Inc., 8 So.3d 388 (Fla.3d DCA 2009) (Helps explain need for explicit findings in sanctions orders)
- Buroz-Henriquez v. De Buroz, 19 So.3d 1140 (Fla.3d DCA 2009) (supports requirement of explicit findings under sanctions framework)