Case Name: Brent D. SCHLAPPER, D.O., et al., Appellants, v. Michael MAURER, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-02-19
Citations: 687 So. 2d 982
Docket Number: No. 95-877
Parties: Brent D. SCHLAPPER, D.O., et al., Appellants, v. Michael MAURER, et al., Appellees.
Judges: PETERSON, C.J., concurs in result only.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 687
Pages: 982–987

Head Matter:
Brent D. SCHLAPPER, D.O., et al., Appellants, v. Michael MAURER, et al., Appellees.
No. 95-877.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 19, 1997.
Jeffrey S. Badgley of Sanders, McEwan, Martinez, Luff & Dukes, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.
Larry Sands of Sands, White & Sands, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellees.

Opinion:
W. SHARP, Judge.
Dr. Sehlapper appeals from a non-final order vacating a final summary judgment, which had dismissed Dr. Sehlapper as a party from a medical malpractice ease. The Maurers (Michael and his wife, Mary Jane) filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Procedure 1.540(b) to set aside the summary final judgment on the ground that Dr. Schlapper's attorney misrepresented a crucial fact to the Maurers' attorney, prior to the summary judgment, and in reliance on that misrepresentation, the Maurers' attorney did not oppose or appear at the summary judgment hearing. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge granted the relief requested. We affirm.
The record established that Michael suffered a heart attack (an acute anterior myocardial infarction) in the early morning hours of April 18, 1990. He was admitted to the West Volusia Memorial Hospital in Deland, at 2:48 a.m. An emergency room physician began treating him, followed by a cardiologist at 6:00 a.m., and Dr. Rankin, his general family physician, at 8:00 a.m. Dr. Sehlapper was Dr. Rankin's partner or co-owner of their medical professional association. The lawsuit sought to prove that all of the above persons were negligent because they failed to employ and administer thrombolytic therapy following Michael's heart attack, which would have prevented or minimized the permanent damage Michael suffered to his heart muscle.
Initially, the Maurers did not allege that Dr. Sehlapper was personally involved in the treatment of Michael. They claimed he bore a 'vicarious liability for the acts of Dr. Rankin and the professional association. Dr. Schlap-per filed affidavits in support of the summary judgment motion designed to dismiss him from the case, which established that he was only an employee of the professional association, and that he was not Dr. Rankin's supervisor or partner. The summary judgment was correctly entered on that basis.
At the hearing on the Maimers' motion to set aside the final summary judgment in Dr. Schlapper's favor, it was disclosed that prior to filing the law suit, the Maurers obtained records from the hospital emergency room, which revealed that shortly after Michael's treatment began in the emergency room, the emergency room physician called Dr. Schlap-per. This notation was practically illegible because of the poor handwriting of the person who made the entry.
Although the notation was illegible to most people, the Maurers' expert witness read it. In a February 1993 letter, the expert witness told the Maurers' attorney that the note existed, and advised him to investigate it further, specifically as to when Dr. Sehlapper was contacted. However, the attorney did not conduct further discovery before dealing with the summary judgment motion.
The crucial testimony supporting the trial court's order vacating the summary judgment came from the Maurers' attorney. His testimony was that just prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the attorney for Dr. Schlapper and the attorney for the Maurers discussed the issues in the case. During that conversation, the attorney for Dr. Schlapper represented to the attorney for the Maurers that "Dr. Schlapper had nothing to do with the treatment of Mr. Maurer." Based on that representation, the attorney for the Maurers did not oppose the summary judgment which dismissed Dr. Schlapper from the case.
Subsequently, a new attorney for the Maurers deposed both the emergency room physician and Dr. Schlapper. It was discovered that the emergency room physician initially called Dr. Schlapper from the hospital, not Rankin, shortly after Maurer was admitted to the emergency room. Thus there may have been a basis upon which to establish active, rather than vicarious, liability on the part of Dr. Schlapper.
We agree with Dr. Schlapper that the Maurers' first attorney did not act with due diligence and that the evidence which potentially supports active negligence on the part of Dr. Schlapper could have been discovered prior to the summary judgment hearing. See Viking General Corp. v. Diversified Mortgage Investors, 387 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 394 So.2d 1154 (Fla.1981). Thus it does not qualify as "newly discovered" evidence sufficient to permit the setting aside of the final summary judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(2).
However, we think this scenario does supply grounds for setting aside the final summary judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(3). That provision allows the setting aside of a final judgment if procured thorough
[f]raud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party....
Although the attorney for Dr. Schlapper had no duty to disclose to the court or to opposing counsel the existence of facts upon which a finding of liability against his client might be predicated, his professional responsibility owed to the court and the opposing parties imposed on him an obligation not to lie about or misrepresent facts critical to the case. (emphasis added)
The dissent relies upon American Republic Insurance Co. v. Westchester General Hospital, 414 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) and Rubenstein v. Richard Fidlin Corp., 346 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), as being distinguishable from this case because those cases involved misrepresentations of procedural matters. The key issue in those cases is not that they involved misrepresentations of procedural matters rather than factual matters. Rather, the holdings are based on the uneon-scionability of the conduct of the attorneys on behalf of their clients, and the other party's attorney's reliance on the misrepresentations made.
In American Republic, the Third District found it was a "gross abuse of discretion" because the attorney for the plaintiff misled counsel for the defendant, causing the defendant to rely on misrepresentations to its detriment. In Rubenstein, the court termed it unconscionable in a case where the attorney for the defendants was misled by and relied upon the plaintiff's attorney's misrepresentations. The Rubenstein court explained:
In the instant case, however, the defendants were misled by the plaintiff into believing that it was unnecessary to file any responsive pleadings because of ongoing settlement negotiations.
Under these circumstances, we believe it was unconscionable for the plaintiff to take advantage of the defendants' failure to file responsive pleadings by obtaining a default judgment without notice to the defendants. The law is well-settled that a party is estopped from asserting legal rights to the detriment of another party when to do so would be unconscionable, [citations omitted]
We, therefore, hold that a plaintiff may not obtain a default judgment . when the plaintiff has misled the defendant into believing that it was unnecessary to file any responsive pleadings....
Rubenstein at 91. American Republic relies upon Rubenstein, and its holding is identical.
These eases establish that relief from a judgment should be granted to a party whose attorney has relied on the misrepresentations of the other party's attorney. Reliance is one of four elements required before a court should grant relief from fraudulent misrepresentations. Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985); Lance v. Wade, 457 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1984). The recipient of a misrepresentation may rely on the veracity of a statement made to him or her, unless the falsity is obvious or known. Besett v. Bas-nett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980). The trial court's order in this case is presumptively based on a finding that Maurer's attorney reasonably relied on the misrepresentations of Dr. Schlapper's attorney, to the detriment of Maurer.
American Republic and Rubenstein involve misrepresentations by an attorney that no default would be sought dining settlement negotiations. In this case, the Maurers' attorney relied upon Dr. Schlapper's attorney's misrepresentation that Dr. Sehlapper was not in any way involved in Maurer's treatment. Although the deviousness of counsel's actions are more apparent in American Republic and Rubenstein, we think it is equally unconscionable to mislead opposing counsel about a critical factual matter, thereby procuring his cooperation in dismissing the re-presentator's client from the ease.
To condone this behavior on the ground that the misrepresentation pertained to a factual matter rather than a procedural matter is a false distinction, and one that does not comport with the standard of professional behavior imposed upon those who would practice law in this state. Misrepresentations to colleagues and other parties are prohibited by the Rules of Ethics. Attorneys as officers of the courts in our legal system are required to be honest above all else in their professional dealings with others. Preamble, Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 4-4.1 Rules of Conduct provides:
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; . with others on a client's behalf.
Because of the attorney-client privilege, and the attorney's fiduciary duty owed to a client, an attorney has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party or attorney as to the existence of relevant facts. But misrepresentations about facts, as well as procedures and future conduct likewise is forbidden. Any other rule would create havoc, prolong litigation, and make the prosecutions of a lawsuit nasty and disreputable. An attorney has the option of keeping silent, refusing to answer, changing the subject or referring counsel to the discovery process. But he or she cannot misstate the facts.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., concurs in result only.
THOMPSON, J., dissents with opinion.