DeRosa v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc.

Citations: 504 So. 2d 1313; 39 Educ. L. Rep. 478Docket: BN-25

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 15, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellants Richard F. DeRosa and Kerry C. DeRosa appealed the granting of summary judgment to appellees James A. Hill, M.D., Gary Lane, M.D., and the Florida Board of Regents, asserting sovereign immunity in a medical malpractice case. The appeal raised two issues: the applicability of the "law of the case" doctrine and whether the lower court erred in finding that the appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes. The court found the "law of the case" doctrine inapplicable and affirmed the lower court's ruling that the appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity.

Richard DeRosa, during a cardiac catheterization at Shands Hospital, suffered serious injuries. He and his wife filed suit in 1983, claiming that Doctors Hill and Lane were employees of Shands, a private nonprofit corporation. Doctors Hill and Lane sought summary judgment, asserting state employee status and sovereign immunity. The court initially granted the summary judgment without allowing the appellants to depose Dr. Lane, which was later deemed an abuse of discretion in a prior appeal, leading to a remand for further discovery.

After Dr. Lane's deposition, revealing his employment by the Veterans Administration Hospital and Shands, Doctors Hill and Lane renewed their motions for summary judgment, reaffirming their sovereign immunity claim. The appellate court clarified that the previously established ruling only addressed the denial of deposition opportunity, not the sovereign immunity issue itself. The court reiterated that section 768.28(9)(a) protects state employees from personal liability for negligence in the scope of employment and confirmed that Shands is not considered a state agency. The court ultimately upheld the summary judgment in favor of the appellees.

Shands has entered into an agreement with the University of Florida College of Medicine to provide a hospital setting for resident physicians' medical training under university faculty supervision. The university assigns a specific number of residents to Shands, which in turn compensates the university for patient care services, provides professional liability insurance, and funds a health insurance program for the residents. Under this agreement, all university faculty and resident physicians at Shands may claim sovereign immunity as state employees per section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes. 

The determination of employment status hinges on the right to control the employee's work, as established in *Hollis v. School Board of Leon County*. Key factors include the selection and engagement of employees, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over conduct, with wage payment being the least significant indicator. The agreement establishes that university faculty directly supervise the resident physicians, who are exclusively selected and dismissed by the university, while Shands retains the right to restrict the medical practitioners to university-affiliated personnel. 

Consequently, the evidence supports that the resident physicians and faculty are employee-agents of the state entitled to sovereign immunity. There is no compelling argument against this entitlement, despite Shands' funding for resident services stemming from private patient fees. The court orders affirm this conclusion.