255 So. 3d 348
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Brian Newsholme suffered a stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage after treatment at Palms West Hospital following knee replacement; plaintiffs allege misdiagnosis and excessive anticoagulation.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple parties; Petitioners (Florida Hospital Medicine Services, Team Health, and Team Health Holdings) were added in 2017 and alleged to be vicariously/directly liable through West Palm Beach Physician Group (WPB Group).
- In Nov. 2017 Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add punitive-damages claims against Petitioners, submitting a written evidentiary proffer claiming Petitioners condoned or ratified WPB Group’s conduct.
- The trial court granted the motion, stating the ‘‘reasonable showing’’ standard under Fla. Stat. §768.72(1) is similar to the pleading standard and accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true without fully evaluating the proffered evidence.
- Petitioners sought certiorari review arguing the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by not acting as the statutory gatekeeper to assess whether the evidentiary proffer provided a reasonable basis for punitive damages.
- The district court granted certiorari, holding the trial court departed from the required §768.72(1) evidentiary gatekeeping and quashed the order allowing amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard to permit punitive-damages claim under §768.72(1) | The court should treat allegations as true; standard similar to stating a cause of action (Holmes) | §768.72(1) requires a factual evidentiary showing; court must evaluate the proffer, not just accept allegations | The trial court applied the wrong standard by accepting allegations as true; gatekeeping requires assessing evidentiary proffer; certiorari granted |
| Whether plaintiffs’ proffer was sufficient to establish reasonable basis for punitive damages | Proffer and allegations showing Petitioners condoned/ratified WPB Group conduct suffice | Proffer was insufficient and contradicted allegations about relationship/control between Petitioners and WPB Group | Trial court failed to adequately evaluate sufficiency of the proffer; order quashed and remanded for proper §768.72(1) gatekeeping |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (discussed by trial court for similarity between punitive-showing and pleading standards)
- Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So.3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (§768.72(1) requires trial court gatekeeping and an evidentiary showing; rejecting mere-pleading approach)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla. 1995) (recognizes substantive right not to be subject to punitive-damages discovery absent reasonable evidentiary basis)
- Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So.3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (certiorari jurisdiction available to review compliance with §768.72(1) procedural requirements)