Hernando HMA, LLC v. Erwin
208 So. 3d 848
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Respondent Robert Erwin sued Hernando HMA, LLC (Bayfront Health Spring Hill) for medical malpractice and later moved to amend his complaint to add a punitive damages claim.
- The trial court granted the motion to amend after a hearing, citing Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, Inc. as authority.
- The statutory standard governing punitive damages changed between the version cited in Despain and the current statute: the modern statute requires intentional misconduct or gross negligence by the employee and knowing participation/approval or gross negligence by the employer.
- Petitioner argued below mainly that the punitive claim was time-barred, attacked an expert affidavit, and objected to an undisclosed letter; it also cited Despain for a procedural evidence point and did not expressly challenge use of Despain as relying on an outdated statutory standard.
- On certiorari review, Petitioner sought to quash the trial court’s order on the ground that the court relied on Despain’s pre-amendment standard, but that specific ground was not raised below.
- The majority denied the petition for writ of certiorari because Petitioner failed to preserve the argument below; Judge Cohen dissented, arguing preservation and that relief should be granted because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly allowed amendment to add punitive damages | Erwin argued his proffered evidence met the standard for punitive damages and relied on Despain for vicarious-liability analysis | Hospital argued proffer insufficient, evidence improper, claim time-barred, and cited Despain procedurally | Denied certiorari because hospital failed to preserve the argument that Despain applied an outdated statutory standard |
| Whether Despain’s pre-amendment standard governs vicarious punitive liability | Erwin relied on Despain to permit employer liability when employee acted willfully and employer had some fault | Hospital contended Despain was inapt (but did not press that point below) | Majority: not reached on merits due to preservation defect; Dissent: trial court relied on wrong standard and relief warranted |
| Whether the petitioner preserved the statutory-standard argument for appellate review | Hospital did not explicitly argue Despain was wrong under the current statute at hearing or in filings | Erwin maintained Despain-supported showing was sufficient; acknowledged modern statute but argued vicarious fault need be only "some fault" | Held: Issue not preserved per precedent; petition denied (majority). Dissent would find preservation sufficient and grant relief |
| Whether trial court’s reliance on Despain required immediate reconsideration when ruling announced | Hospital asked court to reconsider but did not point to Despain as an improper basis | Erwin urged sufficiency of proffer | Held: Majority noted party could have sought immediate reconsideration on that ground; nevertheless denied certiorari for lack of preservation |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, Inc., 900 So.2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (allowed employer punitive liability based on willful employee misconduct and employer "some fault" under earlier statute)
- Watkins v. State, 159 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (petition for writ of certiorari generally cannot raise grounds not argued below)
- First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Servs., Inc., 127 So.3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same preservation principle)
- HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Byers-McPheeters, 201 So.3d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (granting certiorari when trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements of punitive-damages statute)
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1981) (vicarious liability discussion cited in Despain)