11-3140 HEALTHCARE STAFFING SOLUTION, INC., Successor by Merger to StarMed Staffing, Inc., v. HELENE WILKINSON, by and through WEBSTER WILKINSON, as Legal Guardian of the person and property of HELENE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2012 » 11-3140 HEALTHCARE STAFFING SOLUTION, INC., Successor by Merger to StarMed Staffing, Inc., v. HELENE WILKINSON, by and through WEBSTER WILKINSON, as Legal Guardian of the person and property of HELENE

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 11-3140

Case Date: 03/12/2012

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HEALTHCARE STAFFING SOLUTION, INC., Successor by Merger to StarMed Staffing, Inc., Appellant, v. HELENE WILKINSON, by and through WEBSTER WILKINSON, as Legal Guardian of the person and property of HELENE WILKINSON, and WEBSTER WILKINSON, individually, and DANIELLE H. WILKINSON, Individually, and CHAVONNE A. WILKINSON, Individually, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. and FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, Appellees. _____________________________/ Opinion filed March 12, 2012. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Jack M. Schemer, Judge. Brian E. Currie and Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-3140
CORRECTED PAGES: pg 6 CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN RED MAILED: March 29, 2012 BY: NKN

CORRECTED PAGES: pg 10 CORRECTION IS UNDERLINED IN RED MAILED: May 3, 2012 BY: NKN

Susan L. Kelsey of Kelsey Appellate Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee; Harvey L. Jay, III and Travase Lloyd Erickson of Saalfield, Shad, Jay, Stokes, Inclan & Stoudemire, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee University Medical Center, Inc.

WETHERELL, J. Appellant seeks review of a final judgment in favor of University Medical Center, Inc. (UMC), in a contribution and equitable subrogation action arising out of a settled medical malpractice case. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred in calculating Appellant's pro rata share of the entire liability for the underlying malpractice claim based on the potential value of the claim rather than the amount paid to settle the claim. In 1998, Helene Wilkinson sued UMC and the Florida Board of Regents (FBOR) for medical malpractice. The case was settled in 2001 for $6.15 million, with UMC paying $5,950,000 and FBOR paying its sovereign immunity limit of $200,000. UMC thereafter brought a contribution and equitable subrogation action against Appellant for its pro rata share of the settlement. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay UMC $5,057,500 (which is 85% of the amount paid by UMC), plus prejudgment interest, based on the court's apportionment of 85% of fault for the malpractice claim to Appellant and 15% of the fault to UMC. The trial court did not apportion any fault to FBOR because it found FBOR's negligence irrelevant to UMC's contribution claim against 2

Appellant.

Appellant appealed, and in Healthcare Staffing Solutions, Inc. v.

Wilkinson, 5 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), this court reversed the judgment based on the trial court's failure to consider FBOR's fault in determining Appellant's "pro rata share of the entire liability" under section 768.31(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). On remand, after a non-jury trial, the trial court apportioned fault for the underlying malpractice claim as follows: 70% to FBOR, 25.5% to Appellant, 4.5% to UMC, and 0% to Wilkinson. The trial court concluded that it would be inconsistent with this court's prior opinion to construe the phrase "entire liability" in section 768.31(2)(b) to mean the amount of the settlement and, instead, concluded that the phrase meant the potential value of the underlying malpractice claim. Then, based on its finding that the reasonable value of the malpractice claim was $15 million, the trial court determined that Appellant's pro rata share of this "entire liability" was 25.5%, or $3,825,000, and alternatively, that UMC was entitled to judgment in that amount based on its equitable subrogation claim. The trial court thereafter entered a judgment, and then a corrected judgment, in favor of UMC for $3,825,000, plus prejudgment interest of approximately $2.5 million. Appellant timely appealed the corrected judgment to this court. Appellant does not contest the trial court's finding that the potential value of the underlying malpractice claim was $15 million, nor does it contest the trial 3

court's apportionment of fault. Rather, the narrow issue framed in this appeal is whether the phrase "entire liability" in section 768.31(2)(b) means the potential value of the underlying malpractice claim (as determined by the trial court and urged by UMC) or the amount of the settlement (as urged by Appellant). This is an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. See Healthcare Staffing Solutions, 5 So. 3d at 729. Contribution is a statutory remedy, the parameters of which are set forth in section 768.31, Florida Statutes. Id. The particular provision implicated in this case is paragraph (2)(b), which provides: The right of contribution exists only in favor of a tortfeasor who has paid more than her or his pro rata share of the common liability, and the tortfeasor's total recovery is limited to the amount paid by her or him in excess of her or his pro rata share. No tortfeasor is compelled to make contribution beyond her or his own pro rata share of the entire liability.

Download 11-3140 HEALTHCARE STAFFING SOLUTION, INC., Successor by Merger to StarMed Staff