 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wolford v. Boone12/2/2005
The petitioners, Katherine P. Wolford and her husband, Barry Wolford ["the Wolfords"], plaintiffs below, seek mandamus or prohibition relief to enforce a mandate of this court and compel the trial court to enter an order striking the responsive pleadings of respondents Scott A. Boone, M.D. ["Boone"] and Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida Hospital ["Florida Hospital"], the defendants below.
This litigation is based on alleged injuries sustained by Katherine Wolford resulting from surgery performed by Dr. Boone while she was a patient at Loch Haven OB/GYN Group, which is owned and operated by Florida Hospital. The Wolfords served pre-suit discovery requests with which Boone did not comply. Boone claimed excusable neglect in failing to comply with the pre-suit procedures of the medical malpractice statute and contends that his failures should not deprive him of the right to defend himself. After a hearing, the trial court denied the Wolfords' motion to strike the respondents' pleadings without explanation.
The Wolfords sought certiorari review of the denial order in this court. Recognizing that the defaulting party in pre-suit discovery should demonstrate that its failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements did not frustrate the statute's goals or prejudice the opposing party, this court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. Wolford v. Boone, 874 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We said:
Because our role is to review orders imposing or declining to impose a sanction for abuse of discretion, it is impossible for this court to carry out any meaningful review without findings by the trial court. In Torrey, the trial court had sufficiently explained the basis for his ruling. In this case, there is no explanation of the trial court's analysis of the relevant facts or any explanation why the analysis in Torrey is not applicable. We simply cannot tell whether the trial court abused its discretion in apparently concluding that respondents' conduct was not willful or that Torrey did not apply. Accordingly, we grant the petition to the extent that the order at issue lacks findings. And, in future, we will require the trial court to explain the legal or factual basis for its ruling on sanctions in medical malpractice cases, at least where, as here, the basis for the decision is not apparent.
Id. at 1210.
The Wolfords then filed a motion for clarification asking:
(a) Whether it is this Court's desire that the lower court explain the legal and/or factual basis for its ruling in order to allow this Court to carry out a meaningful review under the abuse of discretion standard or
(b) Whether the lower court should reconsider the motion in light of this Court's opinion.
Boone and Florida Hospital filed a response to the motion for clarification, arguing that there was no need for clarification because the opinion from this court directed the trial court to explain the legal or factual basis of the ruling on sanctions and " here is nothing in this Court's decision which can be interpreted to direct the Trial Court to reconsider the merits of its decision not to strike the Defendant's pleadings." This court granted the motion for clarification, deleting the words "in part" from the opinion and explaining:
The effect of the Court's opinion was to invalidate the January 29, 2003, order of the lower court on the motion to strike as being inadequate, as explained therein. The motion to strike must now be disposed of by another order.
The lower court may either issue an order that contains the requisite findings or issue a different order. Following our clarification or
Page 1 2 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|