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

July 1, 2016 by admin

Torts — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by allowing plaintiffs to plead punitive damages claim without first determining whether plaintiffs’ proffer established reasonable basis for recovery pursuant to section 768.72(3)

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1531aTop of Form

Torts
— Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law
by allowing plaintiffs to plead punitive damages claim without first
determining whether plaintiffs’ proffer established reasonable basis for
recovery pursuant to section 768.72(3), which established a heightened standard
for imposing punitive damages on an employer

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a ST. LUCIE MEDICAL
CENTER, Petitioner, v. SARAH BYERS-MCPHEETERS; BRYAN MCPHEETERS; MICHAEL
ANTHONY MELONI, JR., M.D.; J.H. GATEWOOD EMERGENCY SERVICES, P.A.; EMCARE
PHYSICIAN PROVIDERS, INC.; and EM-1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.A., Respondents. 4th
District. Case No. 4D15-4709. June 29, 2016. Petition for writ of certiorari to
the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Janet
Carney Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562011CA003154. Counsel: Michael R. D’Lugo and
Adam W. Rhys of Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for
petitioner. Philip M. Burlington and Adam J. Richardson of Burlington &
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents Sarah ByersMcPheeters and
Bryan McPheeters.

(PER CURIAM.) Petitioner seeks certiorari relief from a
November 16, 2015 order granting Respondents’ motion for leave to assert a
punitive damages claim. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). Certiorari
review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the
procedural requirements of section 768.72, but not to review the sufficiency of
the evidence. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla.
1995).

The trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural
requirements of section 768.72 when it expressly deferred making a finding on
whether the Respondents’ proffer established a reasonable basis for recovery
pursuant to section 768.72(3).1

Under section 768.72(3), the legislature established a
heightened standard for imposing punitive damages on an employer rather than
adopting the common law rules of agency and vicarious liability. See
Coronado Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. La Corte
, 103 So. 3d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA
2012).

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of
the law in allowing Respondents to plead a punitive damages claim without first
determining whether the heightened requirements of section 768.72(3) were met. See
Strasser v. Yalamanchi
, 677 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

We grant the petition and quash the order on review. Petition
granted.
(CIKLIN, C.J., MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1In ruling on the Respondents’ motion,
the trial court stated, in part, that “whether or not there is an issue of law
regarding Subsection (3) is an issue that I will address at a later time if
that’s developed.” (Hearing Transcript, p. 45).

* *
*

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