Fitchner v. LifeSouth Community Blood Centers, Inc.
88 So. 3d 269
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wrongful death action arising from Chase Fitchner contracting West Nile Virus Encephalitis from blood supplied by LifeSouth in 2002; Chase died in 2004; case remanded after prior reversal directing dismissal for failure to comply with presuit notice; 2003 amendment added blood banks to presuit protections; 2008 amendment further defined medical services; trial court dismissed on remand for lack of presuit notice; appellate court held retroactivity issue and remand for merits trial.
- Plaintiffs argued the 2003 amendment cannot be applied retroactively to pre-2003 acts because blood bank conduct was not a medical incident before 2003; LifeSouth contends retroactive application is permitted and necessary to apply presuit notice.
- Court previously held LifeSouth a protected health care provider under 2003 amendment and that presuit notice was required; on remand, the court allowed amendments but ultimately dismissed; question is retroactivity of 2003 amendment for pre-2003 accrued claims.
- Statutory text indicated retroactive intent for retroactive aspects like damages cap, but not for blood banks; majority held no clear legislative intent to apply blood bank provision retroactively; concession that presuit notice is substantive; case remanded for merits trial.
- The matter involves interpretation of retroactivity, vested rights, and the effect of appellate remand on pleading rights; court concludes retroactivity does not apply to the blood bank provision and reverses dismissal for trial on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2003 amendment including blood banks applies retroactively | Fitchner: retroactivity intended for ‘prior medical incidents’ and thus applies to pre-2003 conduct | LifeSouth: amendment applies to actionable acts only after effective date | Cannot be applied retroactively |
| Whether law-of-the-case doctrine bars considering retroactivity | Law-of-the-case does not preclude evaluating retroactivity since not decided on appeal | Law-of-the-case bars reconsideration of issues actually decided earlier | Law-of-the-case does not preclude retroactivity review |
Key Cases Cited
- LifeSouth Community Blood Centers, Inc. v. Fitchner, 970 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (presuit notice issue and status of blood bank as health care provider under 2003 amendment)
- Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp. v. Sunshine Security and Detective Agency, Inc., 575 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1991) (law-of-the-case and right to amend on remand; reinstatement of pleading after reversal of interlocutory ruling)
- U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1983) (law-of-the-case limitations; issues actually presented must be reviewed)
- Florida Dept. of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (limits law-of-the-case to issues actually presented and considered)
- Raphael v. Shecter, 18 So.3d 1152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (retroactivity and vested rights in damages-cap context)