UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

PERCY KEPFER, on behalf of himself 

and those similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, 

INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a 

Lawnwood Regional Medical Center and 

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF 

FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Profit 

Corporation, d/b/a Lawnwood Regional 

Medical Center

 Defendant. /

CASE NO.: 

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, PERCY KEPFER (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and those similarly situated 

(“Plaintiffs”), through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant, Lawnwood 

Medical Center, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center 

(hereinafter referred to as “LMC”), and HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. a 

Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as 

“HCA”), (collectively referred to herein as “Lawnwood RMC”) and states as follows:

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper as the claims are brought pursuant to the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, as amended (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., to recover unpaid back 

wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

2. The jurisdiction of the Court over this controversy is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 1 of 19
§1331 as these claims arise under 29 U.S.C. §216(b), 29 U.S.C. §215(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-

2202.

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims form a part 

of the same case or controversy and arise out of the common nucleus of operative facts as his 

overtime claims.

PARTIES

4. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was, and continues to be a resident 

of St. Lucie County, Florida.

5. At all times material to this action, HCA was, and continues to be a Florida

Profit Corporation. Further, at all times material to this action, HCA was, and continues to be, 

engaged in business in Florida.

6. At all times material to this action, LMC was, and continues to be a Florida 

Profit Corporation. Further, at all times material to this action, LMC was, and continues to be, 

engaged in business in Florida.

7. At all times material to this action, HCA and LMC operated, and operate, 

Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in St. Lucie County, Florida.

8. At all times material to this action, HCA and LMC shared a principal address at 

One Park Plaza, Nashville, Tennessee. 

9. At all times material to this action, HCA and LMC shared officers and directors, 

including Samuel Hazen, Christopher F. Wyatt, John M. Franck II, Natalie H. Kline, William B. 

Morrow, and Ronald L. Grubbs, Jr. 

10. At all times material to this action, the website for Lawnwood Regional Medical 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 2 of 19
Center, at https://lawnwoodmed.com/ is owned by HCA.

11. On the Lawnwood Regional Medical Center website, the HCA 

nondiscrimination policies are linked to each page. 

12. The employee page of the Lawnwood Regional Medical Center website, located 

at https://lawnwoodmed.com/professionals/employees/, contains several references to HCA, 

including:

Good Government

The Good Government Group is a grassroots employee organization, made up of HCA staff 

throughout Florida and we welcome the participation of our friends, family, physicians and 

volunteers in helping to improve healthcare in Florida. GGG provides a unique way for all our 

staff to become informed, involved, and politically active.

HCA Hope Fund

The HCA Hope Fund is an employee-run, employee-supported 501(c)3 charity. The goal of the 

HCA Hope Fund is simple: to help HCA employees and their immediate families who are 

affected by hardship. This includes disasters, extended illness/injury and other special situations. 

The fund provides emergency information, referrals and/or financial aid. HCA employees, 

vendors, affiliated physicians and the general public can make tax-deductible donations to the 

fund.

www.hcahopefund.org

13. HCA’s website contains links to jobs at Lawnwood Regional Medical Center, at 

https://careers.hcahealthcare.com/pages/lawnwood-regional-medical-center.

14. The description of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center found at that site states:

Care Like Family

We are proud to be a part of HCA Healthcare East Florida Division. We make up the largest 

health system from the Treasure Coast to Miami Dade County encompassing 14 hospitals and 

more than 18,000 colleagues... and being bigger isn’t our goal. Being better is. Here you'll find a 

commitment to your success as a person as well as a professional. We offer more to our family 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 3 of 19
of colleagues and support them in advancing across our robust network of facilities. We nurture 

our team through education, professional development, and pathways for personal and 

professional growth. Join us and build your career on a team that cares like family for both our 

patients and our people.

15. Upon information and belief, HCA and LMC jointly controlled, and control, the 

operations of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center. 

16. Upon information and belief, the activities of HCA and LMC with respect to 

Lawnwood Regional Medical Center are related to each other, are performed under a unified 

operation or common control, and are performed for a common business purpose.

17. As such, HCA and LMC constitute a joint enterprise under the FLSA. 

18. Upon information and belief, HCA and LMC retained equal control over: (1) 

hiring and firing of employees of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center; (2) supervising and 

controlling employees’ work schedules and conditions of employment at Lawnwood Regional 

Medical Center; (3) determining employees’ rates of pay and methods of payment for 

employees of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center; and (4) maintaining employee employment 

records for employees of Lawnwood Regional Medical Center.

19. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was engaged in handling, selling, or 

otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for 

such commerce by any person within the meaning of §7 of the FLSA.

20. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendants

within the meaning of the FLSA.

21. At all times material to this action, Defendants were Plaintiff’s “employers” 

within the meaning of the FLSA.

22. Defendants were, and continue to be, “employers” within the meaning of the 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 4 of 19
FLSA.

23. At all times material to this action, Lawnwood RMC was, and continues to be, an

“enterprise engaged the handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have 

been moved in or produced for such commerce by any person” within the meaning of the 

FLSA.

24. Based upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Defendant HCA 

were in excess of $500,000.00 per annum during the three years preceding the date this 

Complaint is filed. 

25. Based upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Defendant LMC 

was in excess of $500,000 per annum during the three years preceding the date this Complaint 

is filed.

26. Based upon information and belief, the annual gross revenue of Lawnwood RMC 

was in excess of $500,000 per annum during the three years preceding the date this Complaint 

is filed. 

27. The facility in which Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, worked is a hospital. 

28. At all times material hereto, the work performed by the Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated was directly essential to the business of Lawnwood RMC.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

29. In or around July 1987, Lawnwood RMC hired Plaintiff to work as a nonexempt, hourly-paid employee providing direct care to patients. 

30. Plaintiff’s job duties included, but were not limited to, monitoring and 

documenting patient care, escorting patients, and assisting in patient assessment. 

31. At various times material hereto, Plaintiff worked for Lawnwood RMC in excess 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 5 of 19
of forty (40) hours within a workweek. 

32. From at least February 2019, and continuing through April 2020, Lawnwood 

RMC failed to compensate Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees providing direct care to 

patients, specifically, mental health technicians and registered nurses (hereafter “those similarly 

situated” or the “Putative Collective”), at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of 

pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a single workweek as a result of 

Lawnwood RMC’s policies and practices pursuant to which Plaintiff and the Putative Collective 

(1) were required to manually delete hours over forty worked from Lawnwood RMC’s records, 

such that they were not paid for same; and (2) were sometimes required to come in to delete 

hours on their days off, for which time Lawnwood RMC had a policy and practice of not 

compensating Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

33. Thus, Lawnwood RMC mandated that Plaintiff and the Putative Collective delete 

overtime hours that they worked, and refused to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Collective for hours 

during which they were required to come in on their days off to delete their time.

34. Plaintiff’s Director of Nursing Michelle Felix, required Plaintiff and members of 

the Putative Collective to manually complete time clock correction forms which resulted in the 

deletion of overtime hours worked.

35. In October 2019, Plaintiff reported the issue of time deletion to Human 

Resources. He informed Human Resources that he was being required to falsify his pay and 

time records. 

36. Plaintiff was told that he should not comply with a directive to falsify his time. 

37. From October 2019 to April 2020, Plaintiff was not required to manually delete 

his time. 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 6 of 19
38. On April 19, 2020, Plaintiff was required to stay fifteen minutes of overtime 

beyond his scheduled shift in order to complete required work. 

39. On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff was directed to come in to work on his day off to 

complete a time clock correction form to remove the overtime worked past his scheduled shift.

40. Despite explaining that he had done the work, and thus the time should be paid, 

Plaintiff was told, in writing, that the time would not be approved and that he was required to 

delete the extra time he had worked, all of which was overtime. See attached Exhibits A and B. 

41. Plaintiff did not comply with Lawnwood RMC’s request to falsify his time. 

42. Just eight days later, on April 28, 2020, Lawnwood RMC terminated Plaintiff, 

claiming that the reason was “insubordination.”

43. Plaintiff was terminated because he refused to delete overtime hours that he 

worked, and acquiesce to Lawnwood RMC’s demand that he forego payment for his overtime 

hours owed under the FLSA. 

44. Plaintiff and the Putative Collective should be compensated at the rate of one and 

one-half times their regular rate for those hours that worked in excess of forty (40) hours per 

workweek, as required by the FLSA.

45. The Putative Collective, members of which may become opt-in plaintiffs in this 

action, also worked as hourly-paid direct patient care employees, and worked in excess of forty 

(40) hours during one or more workweeks during the relevant time periods, but did not receive 

pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for their hours worked in excess of forty (40) 

hours in a workweek as a result of Lawnwood RMC’s policies and practices pursuant to which 

hourly-paid direct patient care employees: (1) were required to manually delete hours, including 

overtime hours; and (2) were required to come to work to complete manual deletions on their 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 7 of 19
days off, without being compensated for such time. 

46. In addition, pursuant to the same policies and practices described above, 

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed hours of work for Lawnwood RMC for which 

they were not compensated, but in some workweeks did not constitute overtime hours.

47. Lawnwood RMC knew that Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, performed 

hours of work for Lawnwood RMC for which they were not compensated. 

48. Lawnwood RMC retained the benefit of that work, without compensating 

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, for the work performed.

49. Upon information and belief, the majority of Plaintiff’s pay and time records are 

in the possession of Lawnwood RMC.

50. Lawnwood RMC has violated Title 29 U.S.C. §207 from at least February 2019

continuing through at least April 2020, in that:

a. Plaintiff and the Putative Collective worked in excess of forty (40) hours 

in one or more workweeks for the period of employment with Lawnwood 

RMC;

b. No payments or provisions for payment have been made by Lawnwood 

RMC to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective at the 

statutory rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for those hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, as provided by the 

FLSA; and

c. Lawnwood RMC has failed to maintain proper time records as mandated 

by the FLSA because they required Plaintiff and the Putative Collective to 

alter their time records improperly, and did not track or pay time spent 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 8 of 19
coming to work on days off to complete required manual alterations to 

time records.

51. Lawnwood RMC’s failure and/or refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff and 

the Putative Collective at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA was willful, as 

Lawnwood RMC had specific knowledge of the hours worked, and that overtime would be 

owed if the hours were paid, but instead chose not to pay the hours at issue.

COUNT I 

FLSA - RECOVERY OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION

Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated

52. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 of the Complaint, as if fully 

set forth herein.

53. From at least February 2019, and continuing through April 2020, Plaintiff , and 

those similarly situated, worked in excess of forty (40) hours in several workweeks for which 

they were not compensated at the statutory rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of 

pay, as a result of Lawnwood RMC’s policies and practices as described herein. 

54. Plaintiff and those similarly situated were, and are, entitled to be paid at the 

statutory rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours worked in 

excess of forty (40) hours.

55. At all times material hereto, Lawnwood RMC failed, to maintain proper time 

records as mandated by the FLSA.

56. Lawnwood RMC’s actions were willful and/or showed reckless disregard for the 

provisions of the FLSA, as evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and those similarly 

situated at the statutory rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours 

worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek when they knew, or should have known, such 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 9 of 19
was, and is, due.

57. Lawnwood RMC failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and the Putative 

Collective of their rights under the FLSA.

58. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Lawnwood RMC, Plaintiff

and the Putative Collective suffered and continue to suffer damages and lost compensation for 

time worked over forty (40) hours per week, plus liquidated damages.

59. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant 

to 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

60. At all times material hereto, Lawnwood RMC failed to comply with Title 29 and 

United States Department of Labor Regulations, 29 C.F.R. §§516.2 and 516.4, with respect to 

Plaintiff and the Putative Collective, as accurate time records were not maintained due to the 

policies and practices described herein. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, requests a 

judgment entered in his favor and against Defendant for actual and liquidated damages; a 

declaration that Defendant’s conduct violated the FLSA; an order conditionally certifying this 

action as a collective action, and authorizing Notice to issue to those similarly situated, 

informing them of their right to join this litigation; a service award for those acts he performs in 

service of securing relief not only for himself, but on behalf of the Putative Collective; as well 

as costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees and such other relief deemed proper by this Court.

COUNT II

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated who join in this action

61. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 51 of the

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 10 of 19
62. In addition to the overtime hours over forty (40) per week discussed in Count I 

of the Complaint, Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, performed work for Lawnwood RMC

for which they were not compensated, but which were not hours in excess of forty (40) per 

week, as a result of Lawnwood RMC’s policies and practices described herein.

63. Lawnwood RMC knowingly accepted the performance of, and retained the 

benefit of, the work for certain hours up to forty per week performed by Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated as a result of Lawnwood RMC’s policies and practices described herein.

64. It would be inequitable to allow Lawnwood RMC to retain the benefit of this 

work without paying Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, the wages owed for same. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment entered in his favor for himself and on 

behalf of other similarly situated individuals who opt-in to this case and against Lawnwood 

RMC for actual and compensatory damages, and/or restitution, as well as costs, expenses and 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida § 448.08 and such other relief deemed proper by this Court.

COUNT III

WRONGFUL ENRICHMENT

(in the alternative)

Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated who join in this action

65. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 51 of the

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

66. In addition to the overtime hours over forty (40) per week discussed in Count I 

of the Complaint, Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, performed additional hours of work for 

Lawnwood RMC for which they were not compensated, which were not hours in excess of forty 

(40) per week as a result of Lawnwood RMC’s policies and practices described herein.

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 11 of 19
67. Lawnwood RMC knowingly accepted the performance of, and retained the 

benefit of, the work for certain hours up to forty per week performed by Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated as a result of Lawnwood RMC’s policies and practices described herein.

68. Lawnwood RMC wrongfully retained the wages owed to Plaintiff and those 

similarly situated for work performed for hours not exceeding forty hours in a workweek. 

69. It would be inequitable to allow Lawnwood RMC to retain the benefit of this 

work without paying Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, the wages owed for same. 

70. Plaintiff files this claim in an abundance of caution, and in order to avoid 

unnecessary motion practice, although under Florida law, as the Middle District has recognized, 

there is no distinction between a claim for “unjust enrichment” and “wrongful enrichment.” 

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Silver Star Health and Rehab Inc.,.No. 6:10–cv–1103–Orl–

31GJK, 2011 WL 6338496, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2011) (PRESNELL J.). As Judge 

Presnell noted:

Several federal courts have drawn a distinction between “unjust 

enrichment” and “wrongful enrichment.” These courts have reasoned that 

wrongful conduct which results in “enrichment” creates a cause of action 

in tort for the wrong committed, e.g., fraud, civil conspiracy, conversion. 

Unjust enrichment claims, however, are concerned solely with 

enrichments that are unjust independent of any wrong. According to this 

line of cases, when a claim for unjust enrichment is based solely on 

wrongful conduct, it must be dismissed in favor of a properly pled claim in 

tort. See, e.g., Guyana Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Melbourne Intern. Comm'ns, Ltd.,

329 F.3d 1241, 1245 n. 3 (11th Cir.2003).

[The Lawnwood RMC] points out that this line of cases, although 

purportedly based on Florida law, is grounded instead on a single law 

review article that makes no mention of Florida law. See Guyana, 329 

F.3d at 1245 n. 3 (citing Unjust Enrichment and Wrongful Enrichment, 79 

TEXAS L.REV. 1767, 1783 (2001)); Flint v. ABB, Inc., 337 F.3d 1326, 

1331 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2003) ((citing Unjust Enrichment and 

Wrongful Enrichment, 79 TEXAS L .REV. 1767, 1783 (2001)); State of 

Florida v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 420 F.Supp.2d 1288, 1308 

(S.D.Fla.2005) (citing Guyana and Flint ); Group Assets, LLC v. Fortress 

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 12 of 19
Investment Grp., 2010 WL 2951508 at *4 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (citing 

Guyana, Flint, and Tenet Healthcare ).

Indeed, it appears that no Florida court has ever made this distinction. See, 

e.g., Golden v. Woodward, 15 So.3d 664, 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“An 

action for ‘unjust enrichment’ exists to prevent the wrongful retention of a 

benefit, or the retention of money or property of another, in violation of 

good conscience and fundamental principles of justice or equity.” (quoting 

Henry M. Butler, Inc. v. Trizec Prop., Inc., 524 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 1988)); see also Physicians Injury Care Center, 427 Fed. App'x 714 

(upholding a jury verdict on an unjust enrichment claim for fraudulent 

submission of PIP claims based on a “sham course of treatment”). In the 

absence of any Florida law on the issue, the Court declines to make such a 

distinction.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment entered in his favor for himself and on 

behalf of other similarly situated individuals who opt-in to this case and against Lawnwood 

RMC for actual and compensatory damages, and/or restitution, as well as costs, expenses and 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida § 448.08 and such other relief deemed proper by this Court.

COUNT IV

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF §215(a)(3) 

Plaintiff for himself 

71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 51 of the Complaint as if 

fully set forth herein. 

72. On April 20, 2020, Lawnwood RMC requested Plaintiff to come in on his day 

off to complete the time clock correction form to remove 15 minutes of overtime incurred when 

he worked past his scheduled shift. 

73. Plaintiff explained that he had worked the time, but was advised that the time 

would not be approved, and must be deleted.

74. Plaintiff did not comply with the request to falsify his time. 

75. On April 28, 2020, Lawnwood RMC terminated Plaintiff for refusing to falsify 

his time.

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 13 of 19
76. Lawnwood RMC has discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because he 

would not comply with Lawnwood RMC’s demands to delete overtime hours worked, in violation 

of 29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3).

77. As a direct and proximate result of Lawnwood RMC’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff 

has been damaged. 

78. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. §216(b).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a judgment for Plaintiff and against Lawnwood RMC

for violation of 29 U.S.C. §215(a)(3); as well as back pay, an equal amount in liquidated damages, 

front pay, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees and all other equitable relief 

this Court deems just. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right by jury.

Dated: this day of July, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted,

 

ANGELI MURTHY, ESQ., B.C.S.

Florida Bar No. 088758 

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.

8151 Peters Road, Ste. 4000

Plantation, Florida 33324

Telephone: (954) 318-0268

Facsimile: (954) 333-3515

E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com 

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff

3rd

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 14 of 19
EXHIBIT “A”

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 15 of 19
Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 16 of 19
EXHIBIT “B”

Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 17 of 19
Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 18 of 19
Case 2:20-cv-14222-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2020 Page 19 of 19