Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Coxon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Coxon

502 So. 2d 1369, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 654, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7023

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

DocketNos. 86-814, 86-815

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 1369 (Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Coxon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Coxon, 502 So. 2d 1369, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 654, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7023 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, appellants, Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund (“FPCF”) and St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (“St. Joseph’s”), both appeal the trial court’s single final judgment requiring each appellant to pay a pro rata share of the attorney’s fees awarded to appellee pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981). FPCF argues that the legislative scheme encompassed within chapter 768 does not contemplate FPCF being liable for attorney’s fees as a part of a “claim” which FPCF may be obligated to pay. St. Joseph’s argues that once they have paid their entry level limits (in this case $100,-000) as required by chapter 768, their obligation is satisfied and they are not liable for additional payments in the form of attorney’s fees.

We addressed this issue in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Maurer, 493 So.2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In that case, we held that FPCF was not liable for attorney’s fees imposed pursuant to section 768.56. (Repealed by ch. 85-175, § 43, Laws of Florida.) In addition, we held that the health care provider was liable for such fees.

Following Maurer, we reverse the holding of the trial court which imposed a pro rata liability for attorney’s fees on FPCF, vacate the final judgment and remand for entry of a final judgment consistent herewith. By our holding herein, we are again in conflict with Bouchoc v. Peterson, 490 So.2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, appellants, Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund (“FPCF”) and St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc. (“St. Joseph’s”), both appeal the trial court’s single final judgment requiring each appellant to pay a pro rata share of the attorney’s fees awarded to appellee pursuant to section 768.56, Florida Statutes (1981). FPCF argues that the legislative scheme encompassed within chapter 768 does not contemplate FPCF being liable for attorney’s fees as a part of a “claim” which FPCF may be obligated to pay. St. Joseph’s argues that once they have paid their entry level limits (in this case $100,-000) as required by chapter 768, their obligation is satisfied and they are not liable for additional payments in the form of attorney’s fees.

We addressed this issue in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Maurer, 493 So.2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In that case, we held that FPCF was not liable for attorney’s fees imposed pursuant to section 768.56. (Repealed by ch. 85-175, § 43, Laws of Florida.) In addition, we held that the health care provider was liable for such fees.

Following Maurer, we reverse the holding of the trial court which imposed a pro rata liability for attorney’s fees on FPCF, vacate the final judgment and remand for entry of a final judgment consistent herewith. By our holding herein, we are again in conflict with Bouchoc v. Peterson, 490 So.2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 1369, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 654, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-patients-compensation-fund-v-coxon-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack