Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Pilgrim
107 So. 3d 505
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lakeland Regional Medical Center sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying its motion to dismiss the Pilgrims’ negligence suit, which could proceed without presuit compliance under chapter 766.
- Pilgrims alleged Mrs. Pilgrim underwent an endoscopic procedure during which a cytology brush broke, causing injury and additional treatment; the husband seeks loss of consortium.
- Complaint names Hospital and Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc.; claims against Wilson-Cook involve product design, manufacturing, and warning theories, not directly affected by this certiorari proceeding.
- Hospital contends the claim is medical negligence under chapter 766; Pilgrims allege simple negligence and the record lacks clarity on who performed maintenance or supervision of the brush.
- Trial court denied the motion to dismiss, noting the issue was very close and aligning with Broadway’s framework, effectively allowing the suit to proceed pending resolution.
- Court grants certiorari, remanding to develop a factual record; if needed, a limited evidentiary hearing may determine if presuit requirements apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presuit requirements apply | Pilgrim claim may be simple negligence, not medical negligence. | Hospital argues claim falls under presuit requirements of chapter 766. | Presuit applicability requires factual development; district court remands for record development. |
| Can the issue be decided on the face of the complaint | Complaint may be vague; not enough to conclude medical negligence. | Issue could be resolved from face of complaint under Broadway/Corbo principles. | Not solely on facial allegations; record development required to determine applicability. |
| Should the trial court grant dismissal with leave to amend | If presuit applies, amend to show compliance or reframe as ordinary negligence. | Dismiss and require compliance or precise pleading from the outset. | Grant certiorari; remand with leave to amend and possible limited evidentiary hearing. |
| What procedural steps on remand are appropriate | Amend to allege professional duty or ordinary negligence with factual detail. | Affidavits and possibly evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts. | On remand, allow amendment and, if necessary, conduct a limited Venetian Salami‑type hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbo v. Garcia, 949 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (maintenance/operation of equipment may fall under medical negligence standard)
- Broadway v. Bay Hospital, Inc., 638 So.2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (test: direct/vicarious liability under medical negligence standard; not every act is medical malpractice)
- Hosp. Corp. of Am. v. Lindberg, 571 So.2d 446 (Fla. 1990) (presuit compliance may be required or pleaded to avoid waivers)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (jurisdictional questions may require evidentiary record beyond pleadings)
- Ingersoll v. Hoffman, 589 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1991) (waiver considerations in presuit defense pleadings)
- NME Hosp. Inc. v. Azzariti, 573 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (certiorari review of dismissal in presuit context)