Pierrot v. Osceola Mental Health, Inc.
106 So. 3d 491
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pierrot appeals a trial court order dismissing with prejudice his wrongful death claim against Park Place.
- The claim was argued to be outside the Florida Medical Malpractice Act presuit requirements.
- Jean, a pregnant woman, was involuntarily Baker Acted and brought to Park Place where she died after two days of care.
- Pierrot stated the claim seeks rights violations under the Baker Act, not medical malpractice damages.
- Park Place moved to dismiss, contending the claim was for medical negligence and subject to presuit requirements; the court agreed and dismissed.
- On appeal, Pierrot contends the presuit requirements do not apply because the claim is statutory Baker Act rights and Park Place is not a health care provider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does presuit compliance apply to Baker Act rights claim? | Pierrot argues presuit requirements do not apply to statutory Baker Act claims. | Park Place contends the claim is medical malpractice and subject to presuit rules. | Presuit requirements do not apply to Baker Act statutory claims. |
| Is Park Place a health care provider under the MMA for presuit purposes? | Park Place should not be deemed a health care provider under MMA definitions. | Park Place is a health care provider under the MMA definitions applicable to presuit. | Park Place is not a health care provider under §766.202(4) for presuit purposes. |
| If not a health care provider, can presuit rules be read to apply to the claim? | If Park Place isn’t a health care provider, presuit requirements should not apply. | Presuit rules could still apply if the claim resembled medical negligence. | The presuit requirements do not apply because the claim relies on statutory Baker Act rights, not medical malpractice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrated Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Lang-Redway, 840 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2002) (presuit requirements narrowly construed to malpractice claims only)
- Integrated Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Lang-Redway (Integrated II), 840 So.2d 980 (Fla. 2002) (approved narrowing; statutory rights not within MMA presuit)
- Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla. 1993) (defines health care provider and presuit scope)
- J.B. v. Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola, 635 So.2d 945 (Fla. 1994) (claim test for medical malpractice standard of care)
- Joseph v. Univ. Behavioral LLC, 71 So.3d 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (limits application of MMA presuit to malpractice claims)
- Blom v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 911 So.2d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (statutory vs common-law claims in presuit context)