Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 15, 2016 by admin

Attorney’s fees — Trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees against defendant as a sanction for misconduct in having conversations with a witness which could be overheard by jurors

41 Fla. L. Weekly D929aTop of Form

Torts
— Medical malpractice — Attorney’s fees — Trial court properly awarded
attorney’s fees against defendant as a sanction for misconduct in having
conversations with a witness which could be overheard by jurors — Where
defendant’s misconduct resulted in a mistrial, it was proper to award
attorney’s fees for preparation for and conduct of that trial, but it was
improper to award fees for preparation and conduct of subsequent trials which
did not directly relate to defendant’s misconduct

PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al.,
Appellants, vs. JANNERAL DENSON AND JORDAN TAYLOR, Appellees. 3rd District.
Case No. 3D14-2953. L.T. Case No. 99-3722. Opinion filed April 13, 2016. An
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jerald Bagley, Judge.
Counsel: Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and James J. Allen
and Eric A. Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellants. Heyer &
Associates, P.A., and Barbara A. Heyer (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.

(Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.)

(FERNANDEZ, Judge.) Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County
(“Trust”) and Dr. John Bennett appeal the trial court’s order granting
attorney’s fees to appellees, Janneral Denson and Jordan Taylor (“Denson”). We
affirm the trial court’s imposition of sanctions due to the misconduct of a
witness, but reverse the award to the extent that it does not bear direct
relation to the misconduct.

Denson filed the underlying medical malpractice action
against the Trust and Dr. Bennett in February 1999. The case proceeded to trial
in November 2012 but resulted in a mistrial due to Dr. Bennett’s misconduct
with a trial witness. The misconduct involved a case-related conversation with
a witness outside of the courtroom when jurors were a short distance away.
Another conversation occurred between Dr. Bennett, defense counsel, and the
same witness in a restroom where a juror overheard the conversation.

Denson moved for sanctions seeking $49,000 in attorney’s
fees that represented the time spent in preparation for trial from October 12,
2012 through November 29, 2012. The trial court denied the motion without
prejudice.

The second trial commenced in June 2013. It resulted in a
mistrial due to a shortage of potential jurors. The third trial commenced in
June 2014 after which the court directed verdicts in favor of the defendants.
The jury returned a verdict in Denson’s favor on the medical malpractice
action. Denson renewed her motion for sanctions seeking $238,202 in fees for:
(1) time spent prior to the first trial for prosecuting the matter from
November 1999 through May 2012, (2) time spent in preparation for and during
the first trial, (3) time spent in preparation for and during the second trial,
and (4) time spent in preparation for and during the third trial.

The trial court awarded Denson fees in the amount of
$208,702. The court found that Denson was not entitled to recover fees incurred
for the second trial, but she was entitled to recover the remainder of fees.
The court also found that Dr. Bennett engaged in a pattern of behavior that
reflected a total disregard for and disrespect to the court; and that such
misconduct, as well as the court’s findings, were detailed in the record of
previous hearings and trial proceedings.

We review a trial court’s order imposing attorney’s fees as
sanctions under an abuse of discretion standard. Bitterman v. Bitterman,
714 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1998); Ferere v. Shure, 65 So. 3d 1141 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2011). The order imposing an award of fees as sanctions is reviewed de novo
to the extent that it is based on the court’s interpretation of the law. Ferere,
65 So. 3d at 1141.

The trial court properly imposed sanctions for Dr. Bennett’s
misconduct. The trial court has the inherent power to sanction conduct separate
from any statute or rule that provides for fees, and a court may invoke this
power even where the conduct could also be sanctioned under a statute or rule. See
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991); Bitterman v. Bitterman,
714 So. 2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998)(holding that in the absence of statutory or
contractual authority, a court could award attorney’s fees under the
“inequitable conduct doctrine.”).

Dr. Bennett’s misconduct was willful, deliberate, and
intentional and constituted a violation of the trial court’s instruction not to
discuss trial matters with any witness or party. Dr. Bennett admitted that the
inappropriate conversation took place, and he acknowledged the trial court’s
previous instruction not to discuss the case with any witnesses or parties. The
trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s
fees in Denson’s favor.

The trial court, however, abused its discretion when it
awarded attorney’s fees beyond that necessary to compensate the plaintiff for
its preparation for and conduct of the first trial. An attorney’s fee award
must directly relate to the attorney’s fees and costs that the opposing party
incurred as a result of the specific bad faith conduct. See Moakley
v. Smallwood
, 826 So. 2d 221, 224 (Fla. 2002). The time spent in
preparation for and conduct of the second and third trials did not directly
relate to Dr. Bennett’s misconduct.

We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the
attorney’s fee award, and remand the cause for entry of an award consistent
with this opinion such that only the time spent in preparation for and conduct
of the first trial is properly compensated.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982