Univeristy of Miami, School of Medicine v. Ruiz
164 So. 3d 758
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Infant Michael Ruiz suffered a birth-related neurological injury during delivery at Jackson North; parents sued UM (University of Miami) and the Public Health Trust (PHT) for medical malpractice, alleging both direct and vicarious liability.
- Two UM OB/GYNs (Drs. Norris and Barker) provided care; the ALJ found the doctors failed to give statutorily required NICA notice while PHT did, and ruled Michael’s injury compensable under NICA.
- The plaintiffs filed an administrative NICA claim and an award (including up to $100,000 and future medical costs) was approved, but plaintiffs have neither accepted nor rejected the award and continue civil litigation.
- UM moved for summary judgment asserting NICA immunity (exclusive remedy) because it was not a participating hospital or physician required to give NICA notice. Trial court denied the motion; UM sought certiorari review.
- The appellate panel framed the narrow question: can an entity that is not a participating hospital/physician invoke NICA immunity when its employee-physicians waived NICA immunity by failing to give notice?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UM can assert NICA immunity for claims alleging UM’s direct involvement in labor/delivery | Ruiz: UM is directly liable for acts/omissions during birth and thus not immune | UM: any direct involvement is covered by NICA’s immunity; UM need not give notice so it cannot have waived immunity | Court: UM is immune for any alleged direct involvement; summary judgment should have been granted on direct-liability theory |
| Whether UM can assert NICA immunity for claims based on vicarious liability for its doctors who failed to give NICA notice | Ruiz: UM is vicariously liable for doctors’ negligence and cannot claim immunity because doctors waived it | UM: employer should share immunity from suit when directly tied to delivery care | Court: UM is not immune for vicarious-liability claims; denial of summary judgment on vicarious theory was correct |
| Effect of physicians’ failure to give NICA notice on employer-defendant who is not statutorily required to give notice | Ruiz: doctors’ failure to notify waives immunity as to employer-defendant claims | UM: because UM isn’t required to give notice, it didn’t waive anything and retains immunity | Court: Physicians’ waiver defeats their own immunity; but UM’s statutory immunity for direct involvement does not depend on giving notice and cannot be waived by UM’s failure to notify (UM not required to notify) |
| Whether certiorari relief is proper from denial of summary judgment based on NICA immunity | Ruiz: denial should be litigated on appeal | UM: denial causes irreparable harm because NICA provides immunity from suit (not just liability) | Court: certiorari jurisdiction exists and relief granted in part because NICA immunity is immunity from suit; appellate review appropriate for direct-liability error |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Miami v. Ruiz, 916 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (prior appeal affirming ALJ findings about notice by doctors)
- Galen of Fla., Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1997) (failure to give NICA notice waives exclusivity defense)
- Pediatrix Med. Grp. of Fla., Inc. v. Falconer, 31 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (NICA provides immunity from suit)
- Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Alexander, 932 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (NICA construed as immunity from suit)
- Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Admin. Hearings, 29 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2010) (notice provision is severable; plaintiff chooses NICA remedy or civil suit against non-complying party)
- Mercury Motors Exp., Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981) (respondeat superior/vicarious liability principles)
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2005) (vicarious-liability allocation and employer stands in employee’s shoes)
- Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1990) (statute must unequivocally change common law to displace respondeat superior)
- Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985) (if agent exonerated, principal cannot be held liable solely on respondeat superior)