FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR INSURER REVERSED – CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO FILE SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE

Fenderson v. United Automobile, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D235 (Fla. 4^th DCA January 27, 2010):

Plaintiff failed to file a sufficiently specific civil remedy notice to comply with §624.155(3)(a).  Because plaintiff still had time to comply with the statutory notice provision, the dismissal was reversed without prejudice for re-filing.

A HOSPITAL-BASED, BUT NON-CONTRACTED PROVIDER OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO THE SUBSCRIBERS OF AN HMO PLAN, MAY NOT BALANCE BILL SUBCRIBERS FOR UNPAID PORTION OF ITS STATEMENTS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PAID BY THE HMO

Joseph Riley Anesthesia Associates v. Stein, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D257 (Fla. 5^th DCA January 29, 2010):

An anesthesia group provided services to patients in conjunction with their surgical procedures.  The group did not have a contractual agreement with Florida Healthcare regarding the amounts to be paid for medical services it provided to the subscribers of the Florida Healthcare HMO.

In light of §641.3154, a provider may not balance bill the subscriber even when the subscriber does not have a contract with the HMO.  While there may be a dispute over payment amounts for bills rendered for the services to subscribers of the HMO, that is a dispute to be resolved between the medical group and the HMO, and does not affect the patient.

ERROR TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF WHERE HE FAILED TO PROVE CAUSATION ELEMENT OF CIVIL THEFT CLAIM – ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF PROVED DEFENDANT LEFT PLAINTIFF’S LAW FIRM AND TOOK PAPER CLIENT FILES WITH HIM, AND ALSO PROVED DEFENDANT’S PARAMOUR ALTERED CERTAIN COMPUTER FILES, PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THEFT OF FILES CAUSED LOSS OF CLIENTS

Winters v. Mulholland, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D267 (Fla. 2^nd DCA January 29, 2010):

A lawyer left his firm and took many clients with him.  According to the court, the facts of the case were enough to make “any legal ethics professor cringe.”  The evidence showed that after working as an associate at their firm for over 15 years, the associate decided to leave.  The associate took at least one client file from the firm and copied it before returning it.  He simply took other files with him, rather than leaving them at the office.  The associate’s paramour and former paralegal hacked into the firm’s computer system and altered client contact data for some of the clients to make it more difficult for the firm to contact those clients (charming).  All of this was done when the associate knew he was leaving but had not told the firm of his plans.

After the associate left, the firm told him he was going to sue them.  The associate told clients that the other lawyer in the firm was retiring and no one would be available to handle their case.  The firm brought suit for civil RICO, federal RICO, civil theft, conversion, intentional interference with advantageous business relationship and an accounting after 12 of the firm’s most lucrative clients left.  For reasons not apparent from the record, after the close of all the evidence, the firm chose to submit only the civil theft claim to the jury.  The jury awarded the firm almost $800,000.00 in damages and $130,000.00 in attorney’s fees. 

While the firm did prove that a theft occurred, it presented no evidence to prove that the theft was connected with the loss of the clients and thus was the cause of the damages.  In other words, the firm presented no evidence that any client who chose to leave went with the other lawyer because he had a copy of their file.  The firm also failed to present any evidence to establish that any of the clients left because the associate told them that the firm’s lawyer was retiring.  In fact, many of the clients testified that they left because the associate was the one who was handling their case. 

The court rejected the law firm’s argument that the conduct of the associate was so repugnant that causation and damages should be presumed finding there was valid civil theft claim.

In this rather distasteful scenario, the court reversed for entry of final judgment in favor of the associate.

*Available to handle appellate and trial support matters for attorneys throughout the state.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 15th, 2010 at 11:12 am and is filed under The Week in Torts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.