University of Miami v. Wilson
948 So. 2d 774, 2006 WL 1687685, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2728 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's probate code, the powers of a subsequently appointed personal representative relate back in time to validate acts taken before the appointment, including the service of a medical malpractice presuit notice, provided those acts were beneficial to the estate.
Facts:
- On October 11, 2002, Marjorie Salmon-Graham died as a result of breast cancer.
- The University of Miami had provided medical care to Salmon-Graham prior to her death.
- Salmon-Graham's daughters, Lisa Wilson and Keisha Salmon, believed the University's failure to diagnose the cancer resulted in her death.
- On September 11, 2003, Wilson and Salmon served the University with a presuit notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice.
- At the time they served the notice, Wilson and Salmon had not been formally appointed by a court as personal representatives of their mother's estate.
- Following the service of the notice, Wilson and Salmon were officially appointed as co-personal representatives of their mother's estate.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Wilson and Keisha Salmon filed a wrongful death action against the University of Miami in a Florida trial court.
- The University of Miami filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the presuit notice was invalid because Wilson and Salmon were not appointed personal representatives at the time it was served.
- The trial court denied the University of Miami's motion to dismiss.
- The University of Miami, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, asking it to quash the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a medical malpractice presuit notice, served by individuals who have not yet been appointed as personal representatives of a decedent's estate, fail to satisfy the statutory condition precedent for filing a lawsuit, even if those individuals are subsequently appointed as personal representatives?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothenberg, J.
No. A medical malpractice presuit notice served by individuals who are not yet appointed personal representatives is valid if they are subsequently appointed, because their powers relate back in time to validate the prior act. The court held that Florida's probate code expressly provides for a "relation back" doctrine, which gives effect to acts taken by a person before their official appointment as a personal representative, so long as the acts are beneficial to the estate. Serving the presuit notice was beneficial because it preserved the estate's claim before the statute of limitations expired. The court reasoned that the legislative purpose of the presuit notice—to allow the defendant to investigate and to encourage settlement—was fulfilled because the University received adequate notice to investigate the claim. Citing precedent, the court also noted that settlement negotiations could have occurred and any resulting agreement could have been held in abeyance until the daughters' appointments were finalized, thus not frustrating the goal of settlement.
Dissenting - Shepherd, J.
Yes. A medical malpractice presuit notice must be served by a duly appointed personal representative to be valid, as they are the only party who qualifies as a 'claimant' under the specific language of the Medical Malpractice Act. The dissent argued that the majority improperly applied the general 'relation back' doctrine from probate law to the highly specific and technical statutory scheme governing medical malpractice. The Act defines a 'claimant' as the person with the cause of action, which in a wrongful death case is exclusively the personal representative. Allowing non-claimants to serve notice frustrates the legislative goal of promoting pre-suit settlements, as only a personal representative has the legal authority to settle a wrongful death claim. Therefore, the notice served by the daughters was a nullity, and the case should have been dismissed.
Analysis:
This decision harmonizes Florida's probate law with its medical malpractice presuit requirements, prioritizing substance over form and favoring access to courts. The court's application of the 'relation back' doctrine provides a crucial safeguard for wrongful death claimants who might face administrative delays in being appointed personal representative while a statute of limitations is about to expire. The ruling establishes that a defendant cannot use the claimant's lack of formal appointment at the time of notice as a 'gotcha' defense to dismiss an otherwise valid claim, especially when the defendant received sufficient information to investigate. This precedent solidifies the principle that procedural statutes should not be interpreted so rigidly as to bar meritorious claims on technicalities that do not prejudice the opposing party.
