Crespo v. Hernandez

151 So. 3d 495, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17409, 2014 WL 5392937
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 24, 2014·No. No. 5D14-759·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The arbitration agreement at issue violates the public policy pronounced by the Legislature in the Medical Malpractice Act, chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2012), by failing to adopt the necessary statutory provisions. Franks v. Bowers, 116 So.3d 1240, 1248 (Fla.2013) (“Because the Legislature explicitly found that the MMA was necessary to lower the costs of medical care in this State, we find that any contract that seeks to enjoy the benefits of the arbitration provisions under the statutory scheme must necessarily adopt all of its provisions.”). Therefore, we reverse the order rendered by the trial court compelling binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement under review. We certify conflict with the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Santiago v. Baker, 135 So.3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

REVERSED; REMANDED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

TORPY, C.J., SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Crespo v. Hernandez, 151 So. 3d 495, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17409, 2014 WL 5392937 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

151 So. 3d 495 (Crespo v. Hernandez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eileen Hernandez, M.D. v. Lualhati Crespo
211 So. 3d 19 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
Women's Care Florida, LLC v. A.G.
196 So. 3d 574 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Womens' Care v. A.G. and P.G.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016
Klemish v. Villacastin
216 So. 3d 14 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
A.K. v. Orlando Health, Inc.
186 So. 3d 626 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)