04-0810 PACIFIC V. BOTELHO

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2004 » 04-0810 PACIFIC V. BOTELHO

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 04-0810 PACIFIC V. BOTELHO

Case Date: 12/22/2004

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2004

PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., etc., Appellant, vs. GEORGE BOTELHO, D.O., CENTER FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY AND RHEUMATIC DISEASE, a/k/a CENTER FOR ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, P.A., LAWRENCE GOLDSCHLAGER, M.D., EMCARE OF FLORIDA, INC., and MARATHON HMA, d/b/a FISHERMEN'S HOSPITAL, INC., Appellees.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 2003-CA-192-M CASE NO. 3D04-810

Opinion filed December 22, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Nicklaus appellant. & Associates and Alexander J. Perkins, for

Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford and Shelley H. Leinicke (Fort Lauderdale) for appellees George M. Botelho,

D.O., and Center for Orthopedic Surgery and Rheumatic Disease, a/k/a Center for Orthopaedic Surgery, P.A. McGrane, Nosich & Ganz and Ruben V. Chavez for appellee Emcare of Florida, Inc. Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Adler, Newman & Lewis and Beverly Eisenstadt for appellee Marathon HMA, d/b/a Fishermen's Hospital, Inc.

Before Judge.

COPE

and

GODERICH,

JJ.,

and

NESBITT,

Joseph,

Senior

GODERICH, Judge. The plaintiff, Pacific Insurance Company, Ltd., as subrogee of Hawk's Cay Investors, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, d/b/a Hawk's Cay Resort & Marina [Pacific], appeals from a final order dismissing with prejudice its complaint for equitable

subrogation against defendants, George Botelho, D.O.; Center for Orthopedic Surgery and Rheumatic Disease, a/k/a Center for

Orthopaedic Surgery, P.A.; Lawrence Goldschlager, M.D.;1 Emcare of Florida, Inc.; and Marathon HMA, d/b/a Fishermen's Hospital, Inc. [collectively referred to as medical providers]. Martha Hawk's Cay Ziesenheim Resort & tripped Marina and fell on the She premises of

[Hawk's

Cay].

then

received

treatment from the medical providers for injuries she sustained.

Dr. Goldschlager is an employee of Emcare, but he was never personally served.
1

2

Mr. and Mrs. Ziesenheim filed suit against Hawk's Cay.

At

the time of the accident, Hawk's Cay was insured by Pacific. The Ziesenheims filed a proposal for settlement in the amount of $500,000 proposal. listing The only Hawk's Cay. Hawk's to Cay the accepted release the and

Ziesenheims

objected

settlement agreement prepared on behalf of Hawk's Cay because it included the assignment of the medical malpractice claim.

Because the parties could not agree as to whether the medical malpractice claims were included in the proposal for settlement, this issue was submitted to the trial court for determination. The trial court found that the medical malpractice claims were not included in the proposal for settlement, and thereafter, the Ziesenheims executed a Release and Settlement Agreement

[Release] that included only the claim against Hawk's Cay. Pacific then filed its complaint for equitable subrogation against the medical providers asserting that their negligence was a direct or proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Mrs. Ziesenheim and that "the amount paid by PACIFIC was far greater than would have fairly and reasonably been paid in the settlement of Martha Ziesenheim's claim because the negligence of [the medical providers] caused additional injuries,

conditions, and infections which otherwise required unnecessary treatment, surgeries, hospitalization, medical bills, and

increased permanent injury to Martha M. Ziesenheim."

3

The complaint

medical

providers

filed to

motions as

to

dismiss to

the

[collectively

referred

Motion

Dismiss].

Moreover, Fishermen's Hospital also filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint as Sham [Motion to Strike] attaching a copy of the Release executed by the the Ziesenheims. affidavit of Fishermen's an attorney Hospital for the

subsequently

submitted

Ziesenheims who averred that the Ziesenheims' lawsuit was for a slip and fall against Hawk's Cay, not medical malpractice

against the medical providers, and that the malpractice claims had been retained by the Ziesenheims. Motion to Strike was later adopted Fishermen's Hospital's by the other medical

providers.

The trial court heard the Motion to Strike and the At the hearing, Pacific

Motion to Dismiss at a single hearing.

argued that it was inappropriate for the trial court to consider the Release in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. Pacific's objection, the trial court allowed Further, over one of the

Ziesenheims' attorneys to testify. the proposal Cay, for and settlement that a was

The attorney testified that limited had to a claim against that the

Hawk's

trial

judge

determined

proposal did not include any claims except for those against Hawk's Cay. The trial court reserved ruling on the motions.

Prior to the trial court ruling on the motions, Pacific filed an amended complaint adding Paragraph 26 to the common allegations, which provided in part that "the Ziesenheims and/or

4

their

attorneys

would

not

agree

to

the

release

language

expressly releasing the subsequent negligent medical providers." The trial court entered a single order which denied the Motion to Strike, but granted the Motion to Dismiss with

prejudice.

In granting the Motion to Dismiss, the trial court

relied on the Release itself and also on Paragraph 26 of the amended complaint. This appeal follows.

Pacific contends that the trial court erred by relying on the Release when ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. We agree.

The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Barbado v. Green & Murphy, P.A., Unlike a motion for

758 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

summary judgment, when ruling on a motion to dismiss, "[a] court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint in

considering the legal sufficiency of the allegations."

Barbado,

758 So. 2d at 1174; see also Patriotcom, Inc. v. Vega, 821 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Further, a motion to dismiss cannot

be granted based on an affirmative defense unless the defense appears upon the face of a pleading. Ramos v. Mast, 789 So. 2d

1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Beach Roadhouse Town Corp. v. Skinner, 356 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In the instant case, the Release signed by the Ziesenheims was not attached to either the complaint or amended complaint. As such, the trial court erred by relying on the copy of the

5

Release when ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

In most instances,

reversal would be warranted where the trial court went beyond the four corners of the complaint when ruling upon a motion to

dismiss.

However, in this case, the trial court gave two reasons

for granting the motion to dismiss, the Release itself, which is beyond the four corners of the complaint, and Paragraph 26 of the amended complaint, which is within the four corners of the

complaint.

Based on our finding that the trial court erred by

relying on the Release itself in granting the Motion to Dismiss, we must now consider whether dismissal of the action was

warranted based solely on the averment contained in Paragraph 26 of the amended complaint. The medical providers contend that even if the trial court erroneously relied on the copy of the Release, reversal is not warranted, and this Court must nonetheless affirm, because

Paragraph 26 of the amended complaint demonstrates that Pacific did not, and cannot, We agree. plead a cause of action for equitable

subrogation.

To state a cause of action for equitable subrogation, the allegations of the complaint must demonstrate that: "(1) the subrogee made the payment to protect his or her own interest, (2) the subrogee did not act as a volunteer, (3) the subrogee was not primarily liable for the debt, (4) the subrogee paid off the entire debt, and (5) subrogation would not work any injustice to

6

the rights of a third party."

Dade County School Bd. v. Radio The medical

Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 646 (Fla. 1999).

providers argue, and we agree, that based on Paragraph 26 of the amended complaint, which we must accept as true, Pacific cannot establish that it paid off the entire debt because "the

Ziesenheims and/or their attorneys would not agree to the release language expressly releasing the subsequent negligent medical

providers (Defendants) in the underlying release." because the medical providers were not released

Therefore, and the

Ziesenheims retained their cause of action against the medical providers, Pacific cannot state a cause of action for equitable subrogation. As such, we affirm the order dismissing the action

with prejudice. In light of our holding, it is not necessary for us to address the remaining arguments raised by the parties. Affirmed. NESBITT, Senior Judge, concurs.

7

Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd., etc. v. Botelho et al. Case No. 3D04-810

COPE, J. (dissenting). Since it appears reasonably clear that the dismissal order was based on consideration of matters outside the four corners of the complaint, I would reverse without prejudice to the appellees to file a motion for summary judgment. As an aside, the majority opinion accurately quotes a portion of paragraph twenty-six of the complaint which states in part that "the Ziesenheims and/or their attorneys would not agree to the release language expressly releasing the subsequent negligent medical providers . . . ." complaint. Clearly there is an error in the

As explained earlier in the majority opinion, the

proposed release included an assignment of the Ziesenheims' medical malpractice claim to Hawk's Cay. Majority opinion at 3. There was

no intention on the part of any of the settling parties to release the medical providers. In light of the evidentiary record developed at the motion to strike as sham, it seems unlikely that anything will change on remand. Nevertheless, the procedural objection relating to the

motion to dismiss is well taken, and I would reverse without prejudice to the appellees to file a motion for summary judgment.

8

Download 04-0810 PACIFIC V. BOTELHO.pdf