Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamageslitigationarbitrationnegligenceliabilitystatutemalpracticejoint and several liabilitydeclaratory judgment

plaintiffdefendantdamagesarbitrationattorneynegligenceliabilitystatutemalpracticeexpert witness

Related Cases

University of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So.2d 189, 61 USLW 2779, 18 Fla. L. Weekly S284, 26 A.L.R.5th 831

Facts

The University of Miami treated Patricia Echarte, a minor, for a brain tumor. Due to the University's alleged negligence, Patricia's right hand and forearm had to be amputated to save her life. The Echartes notified the University of their intent to initiate a malpractice action, but the University requested arbitration under Florida Statutes sections 766.207 and 766.209. The Echartes then filed for a declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality of these statutes.

The University of Miami treated Patricia Echarte, a minor, for a brain tumor. However, as a result of the University's alleged negligence, Patricia's right hand and forearm had to be amputated in order to save her life.

Issue

Whether sections 766.207 and 766.209, which provide a monetary cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice claims when a party requests arbitration, violate a claimant's right of access to the courts.

The issue here is whether sections 766.207 and 766.209, which provide a monetary cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice claims when a party requests arbitration, violate a claimant's right of access to the courts.

Rule

The statutes must provide a commensurate benefit to the plaintiff in exchange for the monetary cap, satisfying the right of access to the courts test established in Kluger v. White.

We find that the statutes at issue provide a commensurate benefit to the plaintiff in exchange for the monetary cap, and thus, we hold the statutes satisfy the right of access to the courts test set forward in Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973).

Analysis

The court found that the arbitration statutes provided claimants with a commensurate benefit for the loss of the right to fully recover non-economic damages. The statutes allowed for prompt recovery without the risks of litigation, required a quick determination of liability, and provided additional benefits such as joint and several liability and prompt payment of damages. Thus, the court concluded that the statutes did not violate the right of access to the courts.

The claimant benefits from the requirement that a defendant quickly determine the merit of any defenses and the extent of its liability. The claimant also saves the costs of attorney and expert witness fees which would be required to prove liability.

Conclusion

The court reversed the district court's decision, holding that sections 766.207 and 766.209 are constitutional and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Accordingly, we hold that sections 766.207 and 766.209 are constitutional.

Who won?

The University of Miami prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the statutes in question did not violate the Florida Constitution and provided sufficient benefits to claimants.

The University has shown that an 'overpowering public necessity' exists.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Delaney v. Cade, 255 Kan. 199, 873 P.2d 175, 62 USLW 2682

Toppino v. Herhahn, 100 N.M. 564, 673 P.2d 1297, 1983 -NMSC- 079

Pediatric Neurosurgery, P.C. v. Russell, 44 P.3d 1063

Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 17 Cal.3d 699, 552 P.2d 1178, 131 Cal.Rptr. 882

Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 15 Cal.4th 951, 938 P.2d 903, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1407, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5206, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8384