You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

McFeely v. Prudential Healthcare Plan Inc.

Citations: 843 So. 2d 1023; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6537; 2003 WL 21002499Docket: No. 1D02-1942

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 6, 2003; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a medical malpractice case, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Prudential Healthcare Plan, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, alleging negligence by Dr. Julie Buckley, a physician affiliated with Jacksonville Health Care Group. The central legal issue was whether Prudential could be held liable for the doctor's actions through an agency relationship. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Prudential, concluding there was insufficient evidence of control over Dr. Buckley, asserting she was not an agent of Prudential. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, highlighting that the trial court's reliance on Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., was misplaced due to its reversal by the Florida Supreme Court. The appellate court noted evidence such as Physician Work Rules and related agreements suggesting potential control by Prudential over Dr. Buckley’s practice, thereby necessitating a jury's assessment of the agency issue. The court underscored that agency determinations are typically factual questions inappropriate for summary judgment unless the evidence unequivocally supports one conclusion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Agency and Control in Medical Malpractice

Application: The appellate court evaluated whether Prudential could be deemed liable for Dr. Buckley's alleged negligence based on the extent of control exerted over her medical practice.

Reasoning: The appellate court reversed this decision, noting that the trial court heavily relied on Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., which has since been quashed by the Florida Supreme Court.

Relevance of Control in Agency Determination

Application: Control over a physician's medical practice by an insurance company can indicate an agency relationship, warranting jury consideration.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court indicated that there were significant indicators of Prudential's control over the delivery of medical services, and emphasized that the specific facts of each case are critical to the determination of agency.

Summary Judgment Standards in Agency Cases

Application: The court emphasized that agency determinations typically involve factual questions and should not be resolved via summary judgment unless evidence leads to a single conclusion.

Reasoning: In Florida, agency status is typically a factual question, and summary judgment is only appropriate when the evidence leads to a single conclusion.