www.rissman.com
201 EAST PINE STREET
15TH FLOOR
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
TELEPHONE (407) 839-0120
TELECOPIER (407) 841-9726
ORLANDO@RISSMAN.COM
1 NORTH DALE MABRY HWY
11TH FLOOR
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609
TELEPHONE (813) 221-3114
TELECOPIER (813) 221-3033
TAMPA@RISSMAN.COM

900 S.E. 3RD AVENUE
SUITE 210
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
TELEPHONE (954) 526-5480
TELECOPIER (407) 841-9726
FTLAUDERDALE@RISSMAN.COM

709 SEBASTIAN BOULEVARD
SUITE B
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (772) 228-3228
TELECOPIER (772) 228-3229
SEBASTIAN@RISSMAN.COM

 

 

In Crespo v. Hernandez, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2223a (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 24, 2014), the 5th DCA, in a per curiam decision, reversed and remanded a decision by the trial court compelling binding arbitration. In reversing, the 5th DCA found that the binding arbitration agreement at issue violated the public policy pronounced by the Legislature in the Medical Malpractice Act, Chapter 766, Fla. Stat. (2012), by failing to adopt necessary statutory provisions found therein.

The 5th DCA further reasoned that "[b]ecause the Legislature explicitly found that the MMA was necessary to lower the cost of medical care in this State, we find that any contract that seeks to enjoy the benefits of the arbitration provisions under the statutory scheme must necessarily adopt all of its provisions."

The 5th DCA certified conflict between this case and a decision of the 2d DCA in Santiago v. Baker, 135 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In Santiago, the 2d DCA had held that an arbitration agreement, in which the parents and medical clinic had voluntarily waived the right to a jury trial and consented to arbitrate all claims arising out of or related to medical care and treatment, was not void as against public policy.


 

This summary was prepared by Juan Ruiz of our firm.


Juan Ruiz

 

 



39 Fla. L. Weekly D2223a

 

Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Arbitration -- Arbitration agreement violates public policy pronounced in Medical Malpractice Act by failing to adopt necessary statutory provisions -- Conflict certified

LUALHATI CRESPO AND JOSE CRESPO, Appellants, v. EILEEN HERNANDEZ, M.D. AND WOMEN'S CARE FLORIDA, LLC D/B/A PARTNERS IN WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D14-759. Opinion filed October 24, 2014. Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Patricia A. Doherty, Judge. Counsel: Jessie L. Harrell and Bryan S. Gowdy, of Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants. Thomas E. Dukes, III, and Ruth C. Osborne, of McEwan, Martinez, & Dukes, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) The arbitration agreement at issue violates the public policy pronounced by the Legislature in the Medical Malpractice Act, chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2012), by failing to adopt the necessary statutory provisions. Franks v. Bowers, 116 So. 3d 1240, 1248 (Fla. 2013) ("Because the Legislature explicitly found that the MMA was necessary to lower the costs of medical care in this State, we find that any contract that seeks to enjoy the benefits of the arbitration provisions under the statutory scheme must necessarily adopt all of its provisions."). Therefore, we reverse the order rendered by the trial court compelling binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement under review. We certify conflict with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Santiago v. Baker, 135 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

REVERSED; REMANDED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED. (TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.)

 



* * *