Case Name: George BOUCHOC, St. Francis Hospital, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and The Florida Patient's Compensation Fund, Appellant, v. Edna PETERSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederick Peterson, deceased, for the use and benefit of Edna Peterson, as surviving spouse and the Estate of Frederick Peterson, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-06-03
Citations: 490 So. 2d 132
Docket Number: Nos. 85-973, 85-1009
Parties: George BOUCHOC, St. Francis Hospital, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and The Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, Appellant, v. Edna PETERSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederick Peterson, deceased, for the use and benefit of Edna Peterson, as surviving spouse and the Estate of Frederick Peterson, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 490
Pages: 132–135

Head Matter:
George BOUCHOC, St. Francis Hospital, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and The Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, Appellant, v. Edna PETERSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frederick Peterson, deceased, for the use and benefit of Edna Peterson, as surviving spouse and the Estate of Frederick Peterson, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 85-973, 85-1009.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 3, 1986.
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1986.
Talburt, Kubicki, Bradley & Draper and Betsy E. Gallagher, for appellants/cross-appellees George Bouchoc and St. Francis Hosp.
Joe Unger, Miami, for appellant Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund.
Holland & Knight and Julian Clarkson and Richard Nichols, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee/ cross-appellant.
Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
FERGUSON, Judge.
This appeal is brought from a final judgment for attorney's fees based on section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1983), against defendants, health care providers and the Florida Patient's Compensation Fund. By cross-appeal plaintiff challenges the amended final judgment on liability and damages to the extent that it limits the health care providers' liability to the statutory $100,000 without conditioning the limitation on the Fund's ability to satisfy that amount of the judgment which exceeds $100,000.
We affirm the judgment on the authority of Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Miller, 436 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) where, although in a different factual setting, we held that the Fund is liable for the attorney's fees, as well as damages arising from a plaintiff's injuries caused by the health care provider, after the provider has paid $100,000. Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985) is also supportive. In that case the Fund was heard on a challenge to the fee statute on constitutional grounds. The Fund's standing to challenge the statute rested on the unaddressed premise that the Fund could be liable to pay attorney's fees where it was a nonprevailing party.
The question whether the health care provider has to pay the amount of the judgment which exceeds $100,000 if the Fund is unable to pay was expressly not answered by the supreme court in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Von Ste- tina, 474 So.2d 783 (Fla.1985). The cross-appeal here presents the same question, which we also need not address as there is no showing that the Fund is unable to pay the judgment and fees.
Affirmed.
HUBBART, J., concurs.
. The provision has since been repealed. Ch. 85-175, § 43, Laws of Fla.
. Of course we disagree with the dissent's suggestion that the same public policy which precludes shifting of punitive damages to an insurer should also preclude insurer liability for a nonprevailing party's attorney's fees. It is doubtful that the legislature intended the statute as a punitive measure against a party who unsuccessfully advanced an otherwise tenable defense.