Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dressler v. BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSP.
Citations: 566 So. 2d 571; 1990 WL 125091Docket: 89-0220
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 29, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court
Earl and Doris Dressler appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice lawsuit against Boca Raton Community Hospital, challenging the constitutionality of section 768.57, Florida Statutes, and asserting that the trial court erred in dismissing their case for non-compliance with presuit discovery requirements. The appellants had notified the hospital of their intent to sue, after which the hospital requested presuit discovery. The Dresslers responded partially, objecting to several requests and failing to provide a medical authorization form. Their objections included claims of work product privilege and irrelevance, but they provided limited information, primarily basic personal data and some health care provider names. The hospital moved to dismiss due to the Dresslers' lack of cooperation, which the trial court granted, leading to a final judgment in favor of the hospital. The court referenced the precedent in Lindberg v. Hospital Corporation of America, which upheld the constitutionality of section 768.57, countering the Dresslers' constitutional argument. The court noted that the purpose of section 768.57 is to promote pretrial settlements to reduce litigation costs and medical malpractice insurance premiums. The Dresslers contended their objections did not prejudice their case, but the court found their non-compliance justified the dismissal. The Second District Court of Appeal in Pinellas ruled that while Section 768.57(3)(a) suggests mandatory compliance regarding cooperation with insurers during presuit investigations, the inclusion of the term "unreasonable" indicates that this compliance must be executed reasonably. Thus, a trial court has discretion to determine if a party's lack of cooperation warrants dismissal of a claim or defense, rather than enforcing an automatic dismissal. In this case, the trial court found that the appellants acted unreasonably by failing to provide sufficient information regarding their claim against Boca Raton Community Hospital, specifically in relation to their deviation from the standard of care. The court emphasized the statute's purpose of facilitating evaluation before litigation, stating that the appellants' responses were inadequate and hindered meaningful negotiation. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of the appellants' complaint was affirmed, and the court noted that any issues regarding presuit review of objections to discovery must be resolved legislatively.