Opinion ID: 1569136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Glenn Case

Text: Like Christopher Kocher, Courtney Glenn was born at Bayfront Medical Center and suffered birth-related neurological injuries. All Children's, 863 So.2d at 452. After her delivery, Courtney received immediate resuscitation and other neonatal care administered by nurses provided to Bayfront by All Children's Hospital (All Children's). Id. at 452-53. Courtney's parents (the Glenns) subsequently filed a civil suit against the delivering obstetrician personally, the professional partnership to which he belonged, and Bayfront. Id. at 453. The Glenns settled out of court with the obstetrician, his partnership, and Bayfront, and then filed a third amended complaint against All Children's, claiming that it was negligent in its administration of post-natal care. Id. The civil action against All Children's was abated after the trial court determined that, before the suit could proceed, the Glenns must obtain an administrative determination of whether Courtney had suffered a birth-related neurological injury that was compensable under the plan. Id. Following an administrative hearing, an ALJ issued a final written order finding that, while the treating obstetrician gave the mother timely notice of his participation in the plan, Bayfront did not. Id. The ALJ further found that Bayfront's failure to give notice was not due to any medical emergency, which would have excused the failure. Id. Consequently, the ALJ concluded that, because Bayfront failed to give the required statutory notice of its participation in the plan, `neither the hospital, the participating physician, nor any other provider (such as All Children's Hospital) may invoke NICA exclusivity to defeat a civil claim.' Id. The Second District reversed, finding that the disposition of the Glenns' case was controlled by its previous decision in Bayfront. All Children's, 989 So.2d at 3. [4] Therefore, it concluded that the notice given by the delivering physician in this casewho was not an employee of the hospital where the infant was deliveredwas sufficient to meet the notice requirements of the Act. We therefore conclude that the ALJ erred in holding that Bayfront's failure to give notice precluded All Children's from invoking the statutory exclusive remedy provision and being shielded from tort liability. Id. As in Bayfront, the Second District certified the question of great public importance at issue here.