Case Title: Charlene M. Bifulco v. Patient Business & Financial Services, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC09-172

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-172 
____________ 
 
CHARLENE M. BIFULCO, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
PATIENT BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 
Respondent. 
 
[June 24, 2010] 
 
POLSTON, J. 
 
In this case, we review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in 
Bifulco v. Patient Business & Financial Services, Inc., 997 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th 
DCA 2009), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision 
of the First District Court of Appeal in Kelley v. Jackson County Tax Collector, 
745 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and the decision of the Third District Court 
of Appeal in Osten v. City of Homestead, 757 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).1  
The issue is whether workers‟ compensation retaliation claims brought against the 
State under section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2004), are subject to the presuit 
                                          
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. 
 
- 2 - 
notice requirements of section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (2004).2  For the reasons 
expressed below, we hold that the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6) 
do not apply to causes of action brought against the State under section 440.205.3   
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
Patient Business & Financial Services (PBFS) is a nonprofit corporation 
established solely to perform billing services for Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 
which is a special taxing district of the State of Florida.  Bifulco, 997 So. 2d at 
1257.  Charlene Bifulco worked for PBFS as an admitting registrar from July 2002 
until May 2004, when her employment was terminated.  Bifulco filed suit against 
PBFS, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for filing a workers‟ compensation 
claim in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes.  Id.  The trial court granted 
summary judgment in favor of PBFS, concluding that Bifulco‟s “failure to provide 
presuit notice pursuant to section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes[,] was fatal to [her] 
claim.”  Id.  In doing so, the trial court relied on the decision of the First District in 
Kelley, which affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a complaint for retaliatory 
discharge under section 440.205 because the plaintiff had not complied with the 
                                          
 
2.  There have been no changes to section 440.205 or section 768.28(6) since 
the claims arose in the case under review or the conflict cases.   
 
3.  Bifulco also seeks review of the Fifth District‟s decision to affirm the 
trial court‟s summary judgment in favor of Patient Business & Financial Services 
on Bifulco‟s private whistle-blower claim.  We decline to address this issue, which 
is beyond the scope of the conflict.  See Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803, 815 
(Fla. 2008). 
 
- 3 - 
presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6).  The First District in Kelley held 
that “[a]n action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is clearly a „tort‟ 
within the meaning of section 768.28 and presuit notice is therefore required.  Scott 
v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1988) (holding that retaliatory discharge 
is tortious in nature).”  Kelley, 745 So. 2d at 1040-41.   
 
On appeal, the Fifth District reversed the trial court‟s summary judgment.  
Bifulco, 997 So. 2d at 1258.  The Fifth District explained its reasoning for holding 
that the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6) are inapplicable to claims 
under section 440.205: 
The sole purpose for the enactment of section 768.28 was to 
waive sovereign immunity for breaches of common law torts.  
Trianon Park Condo. Ass‟n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912, 
917 (Fla. 1985).  The condition precedent of presuit notice, created by 
section 768.28, was only intended to apply to suits for which 
immunity was waived by enactment of the statute, to wit:  common 
law torts.  A claim for violation of section 440.205, although perhaps 
tort-like in nature, is not a claim sounding in common law tort. 
 
Id.  Because Bifulco was not required to provide presuit notice to PBFS, the sole 
basis for the trial court‟s summary judgment was reversed.  Stating that Kelley was 
“wrongly decided,” the Fifth District acknowledged conflict with the First District 
in Kelley and the Third District in Osten.4  We granted review to resolve this 
conflict.  
                                          
 
4.  In Osten, the Third District explicitly agreed with and followed the First 
District‟s reasoning and holding in Kelley.  Osten, 757 So. 2d at 1244.  
 
- 4 - 
II.  ANALYSIS 
 
Section 440.205 of the Workers‟ Compensation Law creates a cause of 
action for employees who are subject to retaliatory treatment by their employers 
for attempting to claim workers‟ compensation.  Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof‟l 
Adm‟rs, 427 So. 2d 182, 183-84 (Fla. 1983).  Specifically, section 440.205 
provides the following: 
No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or 
coerce any employee by reason of such employee‟s valid claim for 
compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers‟ 
Compensation Law.   
 
Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), defines “Employer” to include “the 
state and all political subdivisions thereof [and] all public and quasi-public 
corporations therein.”  And section 440.03, Florida Statutes (2004), provides that 
“[e]very employer and employee as defined in s. 440.02 shall be bound by the 
provisions of this chapter.”  Therefore, under the plain language of the Workers‟ 
Compensation Law, actions for workers‟ compensation retaliation are authorized 
against the State and any of its subdivisions, as employers.  By enacting chapter 
440, the Legislature waived sovereign immunity for workers‟ compensation 
retaliation claims when the State and its subdivisions are acting as employers.  See 
Maggio v. Fla. Dep‟t of Labor & Employment Sec., 899 So. 2d 1074, 1078-79, 
1081 (Fla. 2005) (explaining that the Florida Civil Rights Act‟s inclusion of the 
 
- 5 - 
State as an “employer” subject to liability was “a waiver of sovereign immunity 
independent of the waiver contained in section 768.28”). 
 
Moreover, the Legislature‟s choice not to refer to section 768.28 within 
chapter 440 is additional evidence that claims brought under section 440.205 are 
not subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6).  When the 
Legislature has intended particular statutory causes of action to be subject to the 
requirements of section 768.28(6), it has made its intent clear by enacting 
provisions explicitly stating that section 768.28 applies.  See, e.g., § 556.106(2)(a), 
Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Any liability of the state and its agencies and its subdivisions 
which arises out of this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of s. 768.28.”); § 
45.061(5), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“This section shall not be construed to waive the 
limits of sovereign immunity set forth in s. 768.28.”); § 351.03(4)(c), Fla. Stat. 
(2004) (“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to nullify the liability 
provisions of s. 768.28.”); § 393.075(3), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Nothing in this section 
amends, expands, or supersedes the provisions of s. 768.28.”); § 395.50(5)(b), Fla. 
Stat. (2004) (“The provisions of this section do not supersede the provisions of s. 
768.28.”).   
Similarly, in several instances, the Legislature has chosen to make the 
requirements of section 768.28(6) applicable by waiving sovereign immunity 
through reference to section 768.28 rather than through the definitions within a 
 
- 6 - 
statutory cause of action.  See, e.g., § 252.944, Fla. Stat. (2004) (“The commission 
and the committees are state agencies, and the members of the commission and 
committees are officers, employees, or agents of the state for the purposes of s. 
768.28.”); § 455.32(5), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“The provisions of s. 768.28 apply to 
each such corporation, which is deemed to be a corporation primarily acting as an 
instrumentality of the state . . . .”). 
 By contrast, the Legislature has made no indication that it intends the 
presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6) to apply to causes of action 
brought under section 440.205.  Instead of waiving sovereign immunity in 
such actions by referring to section 768.28, the Legislature chose to create 
liability through its specific and clear definition of “employer,” which 
includes the State and its subdivisions.  Because the Legislature did not refer 
to section 768.28 or its subsections within chapter 440, and explicitly 
authorized retaliatory discharge actions when the State is the employer, it is 
apparent that the Legislature intended to waive sovereign immunity in 
retaliatory discharge actions, independent of the waiver and notice 
provisions contained in section 768.28. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
Because chapter 440 contains a waiver of sovereign immunity independent 
of the waiver contained in section 768.28, we hold that the presuit notice 
 
- 7 - 
requirements of section 768.28(6) do not apply to retaliatory discharge actions 
brought against the State under section 440.205.  Accordingly, we approve the 
holding of the Fifth District in Bifulco and remand for further proceedings.  We 
also disapprove the decision of the First District in Kelley and the decision of the 
Third District in Osten to the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion.   
It is so ordered. 
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, 
JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Fifth District - Case No. 5D08-98 
 
 
(Volusia County) 
 
Frederick C. Morello and Michael G. Howard of Frederick C Morello, P.A., 
Daytona Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Thomas J. Leek and Kelly Victoria Parsons of Cobb Cole, Daytona Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent 
 
Mark L. Zientz, Miami, Florida, on behalf of Florida Workers‟ Advocates; and 
John C. Davis, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of National Employment Lawyers 
Association, Florida Chapter, 
 
 
as Amici Curiae