Opinion ID: 1697232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: guidance from the wrongful death act

Text: Also, I believe this Court should reconsider its broader position that the Wrongful Death Act does not control the elements of damages available in a wrongful death action brought under the Medical Malpractice Act. See St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961, 973 (Fla.2000). The Medical Malpractice Act is ambiguous in that it does not provide a definition of net economic damages, does not specifically detail the scope of recoverable damages, and does not specifically identify who may recover damages under the Act. The logical consequence of this ambiguity and this Court's decision in St. Mary's Hospital is that without the ability to resort to the Wrongful Death Act for guidance, damage awards in wrongful death actions brought pursuant to section 766.207 have been arbitrary and inconsistent with the Wrongful Death Act. See Chester v. Doig, 842 So.2d 106 (Fla.2003); St. Mary's Hosp.; Barlow. [6] In a 2003 special session, the Legislature corrected this inconsistency by amending section 766.207(7) to specifically require arbitrators to look to the Wrongful Death Act when awarding damages. Although this change is prospective only, it reflects this subsequent Legislature's interpretation of the original law and provides some additional support to the reasoning that St. Mary's Hospital and its progeny were wrongly decided. This Court has consistently recognized the propriety of considering a subsequent amendment to a statute in interpreting a prior statute when an amendment was enacted soon after a controversy arose. See Parole Comm'n v. Cooper, 701 So.2d 543 (Fla.1997); Lowry v. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 473 So.2d 1248, 1250 (Fla.1985) (holding that when an amendment to a statute is enacted soon after controversies as to the interpretation of the original act arise, a court may consider that amendment as a legislative interpretation of the original law and not as a substantive change thereof); Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 59 So.2d 788, 790 (Fla.1952) (The court has the right and the duty, in arriving at the correct meaning of a prior statute, to consider subsequent legislation.). In this case, the 2003 amendments to section 766.207(7) are supportive of a holding contrary to St. Mary's Hospital. It is supportive of a more reasonable conclusion that the Legislature intended to maintain consistency between awards under the Medical Malpractice Act and the Wrongful Death Act. [7] The majority states that [t]here is no indication in the statutory language that the amendments were passed as a result of this Court's decisions in St. Mary's Hospital or Chester Majority at 9. This statement nicely circumnavigates the clear evidence that the statute was specifically changed to correct the negative impact the St. Mary's decision had upon the continued viability of voluntary binding arbitration. The text of chapter 2003-416 expressly states that the Legislature reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Governor's Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance and found that the Task Force had established that the medical malpractice crisis could be alleviated by enacting reforms. See ch. 2003-416, § 1(8)  (10), at 4035, Laws of Fla. That Task Force expressly recommended that the Legislature amend sections 766.202 and 766.207 to specifically state that damages are recoverable in voluntary binding arbitration only if the claimant has the right to recover such damages under general law, including the Wrongful Death Act. Governor's Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance 300 (2003). And the Legislature followed this recommendation by so amending sections 766.202 and 766.207. Significantly, this Task Force recommendation for statutory amendment was based on the following findings: As a result of the St. Mary's decision, the Task Force has found that defendants are no longer using arbitration as a means of resolving claims. In sum, the St. Mary's opinion has made it impossible for defendants to offer to arbitrate in wrongful death cases. Those defendants that agree to arbitrate now find themselves at risk of arbitrators awarding damages that are not compensable under Florida law. One speaker to the Task Force cogently noted: As a result of the St. Mary's decision, the universe of claims in which an offer to arbitrate can reasonably be considered will be limited to these cases with a single claimant, or a decedent with no statutory survivors; with little or no economic damages; ironically, the cases which should not need the assistance of the arbitration mechanism to settle. The Task Force finds that voluntary binding arbitration in Florida is effectively dead as a result of the St. Mary's case. Governor's Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance 300 (2003) (footnotes omitted). Contrary to the majority's opinion, I find the express reference to the Task Force findings in the legislation, the Task Force finding that voluntary binding arbitration in Florida is dead as a result of the St. Mary's case, and the actual amendment of the relevant statutory sections as recommended by the Task Force are important indications that the St. Mary's decision was not a correct interpretation of the intent of the original legislation. For the above reasons, in order to resolve the ambiguities contained in the Medical Malpractice Act that are at issue in this case and to avoid disparate treatment of wrongful death claims brought pursuant to section 766.207, I believe the Medical Malpractice Act is best interpreted in conjunction with the Wrongful Death Act. Applying the applicable provisions of the Wrongful Death Act to this case, Mrs. Barlow would be entitled to lost support and services, and her husband's estate would be entitled to Mr. Barlow's prospective net accumulations. This result makes all four scenarios for the award of damages provided for in section 766.209 consistent. [8] It is also the result after the new statutory amendments take effect. Therefore, I believe it is the correct result in this case. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.