MDVIP, Inc. v. Beber
222 So. 3d 555
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- MDVIP operates a concierge medicine network; it markets access to ‘‘exceptional’’ doctors and a 65% lower hospitalization rate for members. MDVIP does not itself practice medicine or direct physicians’ clinical decisions.
- Dr. Metzger, a primary care physician, affiliated with MDVIP; Plaintiff Joan Beber joined primarily to keep Metzger as her doctor. Metzger and other providers were originally defendants but were dismissed after settlements, leaving MDVIP the sole defendant at trial.
- Beber suffered a diagnostic failure by Dr. Metzger that led to an above-the-knee amputation; her estate (substituted plaintiff) sued MDVIP for vicarious liability (actual agency, apparent agency, joint venture) and for fraud/misleading advertising and fraudulent misrepresentation based on MDVIP’s marketing.
- At trial, the court denied MDVIP’s directed-verdict motions on the fraud claims but granted directed verdicts for the plaintiff on apparent agency and joint venture; the jury returned a large verdict for the plaintiff on negligence and fraud.
- On appeal the court (1) reversed the denial of MDVIP’s directed-verdict motions on the fraud claims (insufficient evidence MDVIP knew statements were false), and (2) reversed the plaintiff’s directed verdicts on apparent agency and joint venture (evidence could support contrary findings), ordering a new trial on vicarious-liability theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud / misleading advertising: was there legally sufficient evidence that MDVIP knowingly made false factual representations? | MDVIP advertised specific factual representations (active coordination of specialty care, selection criteria based on expertise, relationships with Cleveland Clinic/Miller School, 65% fewer hospitalizations) and plaintiff relied on them. | MDVIP argued many statements were puffery/opinion and, for non-puffery statements, plaintiff produced no evidence MDVIP knew they were false when made. | Reversed denial of directed verdicts for MDVIP on fraud — plaintiff failed to show MDVIP knew statements were false; fraud verdicts cannot stand. |
| Apparent agency: did evidence require submission to jury that MDVIP held out Metzger as its agent and plaintiff reasonably relied? | Plaintiff argued MDVIP’s marketing and materials led to reasonable reliance that Metzger acted as MDVIP’s agent. | MDVIP pointed to an express FAQ disclaimer mailed to plaintiff disavowing medical decision control and agency, undermining representation and reasonable reliance. | Directed verdicts for plaintiff on apparent agency were improper; evidence could support a contrary finding, so grant was reversed. |
| Joint venture: was there sufficient evidence of joint control/right of control between MDVIP and Metzger? | Plaintiff asserted the contractual relationship and MDVIP’s standards demonstrated joint control. | MDVIP argued its standards and termination rights did not amount to control over Metzger’s medical practice or day‑to‑day operations. | Directed verdicts for plaintiff on joint venture were improper; evidence could support that MDVIP lacked joint control, so grant was reversed. |
| Harmless‑error as to vicarious liability: did the jury’s finding of actual agency render other directed‑verdict errors harmless? | Plaintiff argued the jury’s actual-agency finding makes the erroneous directed verdicts on apparent agency and joint venture harmless. | MDVIP argued errors could have spilled over and influenced the jury; plaintiff bears the burden to prove no reasonable possibility of influence. | Reversal required: court found a reasonable possibility the erroneous directed verdicts and counsel’s statements affected the jury, so errors were not harmless; new trial on vicarious‑liability claims ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wadlington v. Continental Medical Services, Inc., 907 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA) (knowledge of falsity required for fraud claim)
- Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA) (distinguishing statements of opinion/puffery from actionable factual misrepresentations)
- Stone v. Palms West Hospital, 941 So.2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA) (elements of apparent agency)
- Arango v. Reyka, 507 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA) (elements of joint venture, including joint control)
- Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A., 694 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA) (contractual standards/termination rights do not alone establish joint control)
- Special v. West Boca Medical Center, 160 So.3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (standard for harmless‑error burden on beneficiary of trial error)