SC10-364 – Robert Bennett, Etc., Et Al. v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Inc., Et Al.

State: Florida

Docket No: SC10-364

Case Date: 07/07/2011

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC10-364 ____________ ROBERT BENNETT, etc., et al., Petitioners, vs. ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Respondents. ____________ No. SC10-390 ____________ FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Respondents. [July 7, 2011] PARIENTE, J. The issue in these consolidated cases is whether parents of a severely braindamaged infant are precluded from suing in a court of law for the damages

sustained by alleged malpractice and instead are required to pursue limited compensation in an administrative forum provided by statute under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the NICA Plan). The narrow question is whether the First District Court of Appeal in St. Vincents Medical Center, Inc. v. Bennett, 27 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), interpreted the term "immediate postdelivery period in a hospital," as that term is used in the statutory scheme, too expansively. The parents (the Bennetts) and the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA), which administers the NICA fund, both assert that the First District interpreted that term too broadly so as to preclude the Bennetts from pursuing their common law remedies in court.1 We have jurisdiction on the basis of express and direct conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeals decision in Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological, 997 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). See art. V,

Download SC10-364 – Robert Bennett, Etc., Et Al. v. St. Vincent’s Medical Ce