CopyCited 39 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2000 WL 854258
...Following arbitration, the plaintiffs in these cases were awarded various amounts of both economic and noneconomic damages. Three issues are raised in this proceeding. First, the district court certified an unframed question of great public importance regarding whether the express provisions of section 766.212(2), Florida Statutes (1997), unconstitutionally infringe upon Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310. Section 766.212(2) limits the ability of a medical malpractice defendant to stay an arbitration award, whereas rule 9.310 expressly provides for the automatic stay of a money judgment upon the posting of a *963 sufficient bond....
...of special services to Ecclesianne; $3,398 in funeral expenses; and $510,632 in attorneys' fees. The total amount of the arbitration award was $4,766,834. St. Mary's appealed the award and filed a motion to stay the award pending review pursuant to section 766.212(2)....
...The trial court declined to stay the execution and directed the sheriff to levy on St. Mary's assets. St. Mary's subsequently paid Phillipe over two million dollars, the amount of the judgment that had become due. On appeal, St. Mary's argued that, because the limited stay provision under section
766.212(2) abrogates the automatic stay provision of rule 9.310, the statute unconstitutionally infringes on this Court's exclusive authority to regulate appellate practice and procedure. The district court disagreed, holding that section
766.212 "created a modified right to judicial review of arbitration awards" and "an equally substantive *964 right to payment of the award during review." Phillipe,
699 So.2d at 1019. The district court also held that the trial court properly refused to enter a stay under section
766.212(2) because it was not manifestly unjust to require St. Mary's to promptly pay the award. The district court certified to this Court the question of the constitutionality of section
766.212(2)....
...s and affirmed the award of economic damages. ISSUE I. STAY PENDING REVIEW OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ARBITRATION AWARD As noted above, this case presents three issues. The first issue involves the certified question of whether the express provisions in section
766.212(2), which limit the ability of a medical malpractice defendant to stay an arbitration award, unconstitutionally infringe upon rule 9.310, which expressly directs an automatic stay of a money judgment upon the posting of a sufficient bond. St. Mary's contends that *965 the limited ability to stay the execution of an arbitration award under section
766.212(2) is unconstitutional because it encroaches on this Court's rule-making authority given the right to an automatic stay of a money judgment under rule 9.310(b). St. Mary's alternatively argues that the district court erred in failing to stay the arbitration award under the provisions of section
766.212(2) on the grounds that the failure to grant a stay would result in a manifest injustice. The Medical Malpractice Act establishes a scheme for the payment of an arbitration award. To that end, sections
766.211 and
766.212 provide as follows:
766.211....
...spute among multiple defendants to arbitration pursuant to s.
766.208. (2) Commencing 90 days after the award rendered in the arbitration procedure pursuant to s.
766.207, such award shall begin to accrue interest at the rate of 18 percent per year.
766.212....
...As set forth in section
766.211(1), the defendant must pay the arbitration award to the claimant within twenty days of the final award of the arbitration panel. Under section
766.211(2), the award will accrue interest at a rate of eighteen percent beginning ninety days following the rendition of the award. Section
766.212(2) states that the filing of an appeal shall not stay the award and that neither the arbitrators nor the circuit court shall stay an award. Under this statute, however, only a district court may stay an award to prevent manifest injustice. Section
766.212(4) provides that if the petitioner *966 establishes the authenticity of the award, shows that the time for appeal has expired, and demonstrates that no stay is in place, the trial court can enter an order or judgment necessary to carry out the terms of the award....
...general law. " (Emphasis added.) Subdivision (b) of rule 9.310 eliminates the trial court's discretion to enter a stay by providing for the automatic stay of a money judgment upon the posting of a sufficient bond. On the other hand, as noted above, section 766.212(2) eliminates the trial court's discretion to enter a stay by providing that a stay of an arbitration award may be entered only by a district court to avoid manifest injustice. Thus, the limited ability to stay an arbitration award under section 766.212(2) is an *967 exception to the automatic stay provision of rule 9.310(b)....
...Accordingly, in this instance, when the parties agreed to participate in the arbitration process of the Medical Malpractice Act, they also agreed to the limited stay and review procedures set forth in that Act. Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court's conclusion that section 766.212(2) does not unconstitutionally infringe upon this Court's rule-making authority....
...available in a medical malpractice arbitration, it could have specifically provided for the application of the provisions of that Act in the Medical Malpractice Act. It has not done so. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we reject St. Mary's contention that section 766.212(2), which limits the ability of a medical malpractice defendant to stay an arbitration award, unconstitutionally infringes upon the automatic stay provision of rule 9.310....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Stay Pending Review Since the entry of the medical malpractice arbitration award, the defendants have made multiple attempts to obtain a stay pending appellate review of the judgment on the award. First, they filed a motion for stay pending review in this court pursuant to section
766.212(2), which allows the district court to stay an arbitration award entered pursuant to section
766.207 but only to prevent manifest injustice. See §§
766.207 and
766.212(2), Fla....
...[1] In response to this filing, claimants filed a motion for contempt and for directions to the sheriff to levy execution. The circuit court denied a stay of execution, directing the sheriff to levy on defendants' assets. In reviewing the claimed error from the denial of the stay, we turn first to section 766.212....
...e for the appellate courts. The court has prescribed a procedure for stays pending review in rule 9.310, which affords an unfettered right to a stay of a money judgment upon furnishing a good and sufficient supersedeas bond. Accordingly, they argue, section 766.212(2) is unconstitutional to the extent that it abrogates the automatic stay provision of rule 9.310....
...Their only showing was that they would have to pay the arbitration award now, even though they might later prevail on this appeal. We conclude that defendants have failed to show that a stay is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. According to the text of subsection (1) of section
766.212, the stay is reviewed by an appellate court in the same manner as a final *1020 order from an administrative agency under section
120.68....
...he agency order has the effect of suspending or revoking a license. So it is clear that in section
120.68 the legislature has considered the question of which agency orders should be subject to a stay as of right, and has just as clearly provided in section
766.212 that no such right should be given....
...rade-offs for claimants who give up their right to a trial by jury and agree to arbitration. We cannot say that such substantive legislation infringes on the supreme court's power to regulate procedures in appellate proceedings. Consequently we find section 766.212 constitutional but certify the question of constitutionality to the supreme court for its definitive resolution....
...lorida Arbitration Code, shall be applicable to such proceedings." On the other hand, the parties may elect to submit the issue of damages to an arbitration panel in accordance with section
766.207, and review of the award will be in accordance with section
766.212....
...Unlike section
766.106, section
766.207 does not contain a provision applying the arbitration code in chapter 682. In this case, arbitration was clearly initiated by the parties themselves under section
766.207. Therefore, our review of this case should follow section
766.212. We again refer to section
766.212(1)....
...The court shall, however, set aside agency action or remand the case to the agency if it finds that the agency's action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record." [5] Defendants argue that under section
766.212 the applicable standard of review for this arbitration is that set forth in section
120.68....
...We then issued another opinion on defendant's motion for rehearing, stating: "Appellees also raise, for the first time, the argument that because an arbitration award under the Medical Malpractice Act is subject to judicial review pursuant to sections
766.212(1) and
120.68, Florida Statutes (1993), declaratory relief should be available prior to the arbitration award....
...he burden of clarity. In Echarte the court settled the constitutional question, and it did not hold or even suggest that the specific statutory provision providing for a hybrid form of judicial review of malpractice arbitration awards was deficient. Section 766.212(1) states the kind of review permitted for these awards in voluntary arbitration....
...Then, they argue, even assuming there is evidence to support the amount of these damage awards and that the proper procedure was followed by the arbitrators, the court must still set aside the awards because of legal error in the types and amount of damages awarded. We agree with the defendants' reading of section 766.212(1) as to the standard of review....
...f the judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest on judgments on the total amount on which the party has an obligation to pay interest. Multiple parties having common liability may file a single bond satisfying the above criteria."]. [2] See § 766.212, Fla. Stat. (1995), which provides that: "766.212....
...directing the sheriff to levy on defendants' assets, the issue is whether the trial court can enter such an order once a bond has been posted under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310. As thus stated, this issue is simply an indirect attack on section 766.212's limited form of stay, which we have resolved as just indicated....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...However, the legislature also adopted a completely separate set of procedures for admission of liability and voluntary binding arbitration of damages. Ch. 88-1, §§ 54-59, at 169-73, Laws of Fla.; ch. 88-277, §§ 30-35, at 1476-82, Laws of Fla. Those provisions were subsequently codified as sections
766.207 through
766.212, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...b), no reference is made to the provisions regarding admission of liability and voluntary binding arbitration of damages already set forth in section
766.106, or to the intended interplay, if any, between section
766.106 and sections
766.207 through
766.212....
...Limitations on the noneconomic damages components of large awards to provide increased predictability of outcome of the claims resolution process for insurer anticipated losses planning, and to facilitate early resolution of medical negligence claims. To the extent relevant, sections
766.207 through
766.212, Florida Statutes (1993), read:
766.207 Voluntary binding arbitration of medical negligence claims....
...final decision. The chief arbitrator shall decide all evidentiary matters. .... (9) The Division of Administrative Hearings is authorized to promulgate rules to effect the orderly and efficient processing of the arbitration procedures of ss.
766.201-
766.212....
...and loss of earning capacity, offset by any collateral source payments. (c) Damages for future economic losses shall be awarded to be paid by periodic payments pursuant to s.
766.202(8), and shall be offset by future collateral source payments. ....
766.212 Appeal of arbitration awards and allocations of financial responsibility....
...a party, for such judgments. As should be apparent from the foregoing, much of that portion of section
766.106 relating to voluntary binding arbitration of damages is inconsistent, and irreconcilable, with the provisions of sections
766.207 through
766.212. Adding to the confusion created by the inconsistencies between section
766.106 and sections
766.207 through
766.212 is the fact that the parties elected not to follow either procedure in all details....
...We conclude that the parties' failure to comply with the provisions of section
766.207(4) requiring that "the chief arbitrator" be a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings precludes the parties from relying, on appeal, on the arbitration scheme set out in sections
766.207 through
766.212....
...It is also why the Division of Administrative Hearings is authorized to adopt rules applicable to the process. §
766.207(9), Fla. Stat. (1993). (In fact, the Division of Administrative Hearings has adopted an entire chapter of detailed rules for arbitration pursuant to sections
766.207 through
766.212. Ch. 60Q-3, Fla. Admin. Code.) Finally, it is the only explanation for section
766.212(1), which states that an arbitration award is "final agency action for purposes of s....
...been filed. See §§
682.13,
682.14, Fla. Stat. (1993). The essence of appellants' motion to dismiss was that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the procedure for enforcement of an arbitration award such as that at issue was set forth in section
766.212, rather than in the Arbitration Code, and appellees had failed to establish that they were entitled to enforcement pursuant to that section. As discussed above, we have concluded that the parties are precluded from relying, on appeal, on the arbitration scheme set out in sections
766.207 through
766.212....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Standard of Review
The parties dispute the standard of review for arbitration awards. The
Hospital contends that an arbitration award under section
766.207,
Florida Statutes (2014), constitutes final agency action, and any appeal is
governed by section
120.68, as provided in section
766.212(1), Florida
Statutes (2014)....
...Although the supreme court used that phrase in listing
the benefits of arbitration under the statute, it was not a holding of the
5
opinion. Moreover, the only place “manifest injustice” appears in the
Medical Malpractice Arbitration statute is in section
766.212(2) which
provides that an appeal does not stay an arbitration award and that “[t]he
district court of appeal may order a stay to prevent manifest injustice, but
no court shall abrogate the provisions of s.
766.211(2).” The Estate also
cites St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc. v. Phillipe,
769 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2000), which
uses the manifest injustice language but in discussing a stay of the
arbitration award, thus applying section
766.212(2)....
