Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. v. Liles
148 So. 3d 507
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Ms. Sutka died after ER treatment at Winter Haven Hospital in 2005; autopsy consent signed by Liles; organs incinerated during disposal; Liles learned organs were not returned and sued Hospital, Dr. Gordon, and Ridge Pathology for outrage, conspiracy, and vicarious liability.
- Hospital policy: histology staff coordinate disposal of autopsy organs in red biohazard bags to an on-site incinerator; family consent was not explained to Liles.
- Dr. Gordon testified he treated organs as biomedical waste and had not discussed family wishes; he claimed he would have honored a return request.
- Experts conflicted: Hospital witnesses and Dr. Strickland supported standard practice and consent form adequacy; Liles’s experts argued lack of informed consent and outrageous disposal.
- Jury found outrage against all defendants, awarded $1,000,000 compensatory and $1,000,000 punitive; after settlements, final judgment awarded $500,000 compensatory and $1,000,000 punitive against Hospital; Hospital appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this is medical malpractice subject to ch. 766. | Liles argues autopsy-related acts are medical negligence. | Hospital contends disposal of organs does not involve medical care or judgment. | Not medical malpractice; chapter 766 not applicable. |
| Whether jury instruction on cremation statute was erroneous. | Cremation statute applies to cremation, not hospital incineration of biomedical waste. | Statute relevant to cremation arrangements; improper to apply to autopsy waste. | Trial court erred in cremation instruction. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of outrageous conduct by Hospital independent of Dr. Gordon. | Hospital policies and incineration of organs without disclosure were outrageous. | Dr. Gordon acted within standard of care; Hospital’s conduct contested. | There was evidence to submit Hospital-outrage issue to jury; but directed verdict against Hospital for Dr. Gordon’s actions warranted. |
| Whether punitive damages against Hospital can stand given trial errors. | Punitive damages warranted for Hospital's conduct. | Errors taint punitive award. | Reversed as to punitive damages; remanded for retrial on Hospital’s actions independent of Dr. Gordon. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Indian River Mem'l Hosp., 778 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 778 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (outrage/handling of a deceased's remains not medical malpractice)
- Liles v. P.I.A. Medfield, Inc., 681 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), 681 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (Baker Act compliance not medical malpractice)
- Reeves v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 821 So.2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), 821 So.2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (not every wrongful act by healthcare provider is medical malpractice)
- Ponton v. Scarfone, 468 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), 468 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (outrage standard requires extreme and intolerable conduct)
- Matsumoto v. American Burial & Cremation Servs., Inc., 949 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), 949 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (outrage evidence evaluated for deceased-related conduct)
- Hoy v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 136 So.3d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), 136 So.3d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (conflicts in evidence submitted to jury)
- Smith v. Telophase Nat'l Cremation Soc'y, Inc., 471 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), 471 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (cremation-related decisions within jury’s purview)
- Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), 575 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (emotional distress survivors’ claims treated with care)