Humber v. Ross

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Humber v. Ross

452 So. 2d 1086, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14387

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 11, 1984

DocketNo. 83-839

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 452 So. 2d 1086 (Humber v. Ross) 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

Humber v. Ross, 452 So. 2d 1086, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14387 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judge.

This matter is before us for review of an order dismissing a medical malpractice case. The complaint alleged a physician and a hospital injured a patient by failing to properly care for him. After the suit was instituted the plaintiff amended the complaint to include the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund in order to obtain from the Fund a portion of the damages sought for the injuries.

In its motion to dismiss, the Fund told the court the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court agreed and entered the order. This was error because the complaint does not show on the face of it that the statute had run and it is to the complaint only that the court can look when considering a motion to dismiss the complaint. Estate of James v. Martin Memorial Hospital, 422 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); and Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Wheelus, 319 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

The order is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, J., and PURDY, H. MARK, Associate Judge, concur.

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

DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judge.

This matter is before us for review of an order dismissing a medical malpractice case. The complaint alleged a physician and a hospital injured a patient by failing to properly care for him. After the suit was instituted the plaintiff amended the complaint to include the Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund in order to obtain from the Fund a portion of the damages sought for the injuries.

In its motion to dismiss, the Fund told the court the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court agreed and entered the order. This was error because the complaint does not show on the face of it that the statute had run and it is to the complaint only that the court can look when considering a motion to dismiss the complaint. Estate of James v. Martin Memorial Hospital, 422 So.2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); and Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Wheelus, 319 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

The order is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, J., and PURDY, H. MARK, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 So. 2d 1086, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humber-v-ross-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack