CARPENTER'S HOME ESTATES, INC. AND HMS OF LAKELAND, INC. v. SANDRA K. SANDERS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARY HURST CURRY

IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA
October 16, 2019
CARPENTERS HOME ESTATES, )
INC., and HMS OF LAKELAND, )
INC., )
)
Petitioners, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D18-2608
)
SANDRA K. SANDERS, as personal )
representative of the Estate of Mary )
Hurst Curry, deceased, )
)
Respondent. )
)
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Upon consideration of respondent's motion for rehearing, certification, and/or
rehearing en banc filed on June 27, 2019,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for rehearing is granted to the extent that the
opinion dated June 12, 2019, is withdrawn and the attached opinion is substituted
therefor. Respondent's motion for certification and rehearing en banc is denied.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A
TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.
MARY ELIZABETH KUENZEL, CLERK
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
CARPENTERS HOME ESTATES, )
INC., and HMS OF LAKELAND, )
INC., )
)
Petitioners, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D18-2608
)
SANDRA K. SANDERS, as personal )
representative of the Estate of Mary )
Hurst Curry, deceased, )
)
Respondent. )
)
Opinion filed October 16, 2019.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Circuit Court for Polk County; Michael
E. Raiden, Judge.
Thomas A. Valdez of Quintairos, Prieto
Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for
Petitioners.
Megan L. Gisclar, Joanna Greber
Dettloff, Jason R. Delgado, and James
L. Wilkes, II, of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A.,
Tampa; and Robert E. Salyer of Wilkes
& McHugh, P.A., Lexington, Kentucky,
for Respondent.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
In this proceeding on a petition for a writ of certiorari, Carpenters Home
Estates, Inc., and HMS of Lakeland, Inc. (collectively, "the nursing home defendants"),
challenge the trial court's order granting Sandra K. Sanders, as personal representative
of the Estate of Mary Hurst Curry, leave to amend her negligence and wrongful-death
action against them under chapter 400, Florida Statutes (2016), to include a claim for
punitive damages. Because we agree that the court failed to comply with the
procedural requirements of section 400.0237, we grant the petition and quash the order.
Pursuant to section 400.0237(1), "[a] claim for punitive damages may not
be brought under this part unless there is a showing by admissible evidence that has
been submitted by the parties that provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such
damages when the criteria in this section are applied." Section 400.0237 creates "a
substantive legal right" in chapter 400 proceedings "not to be subject to a punitive
damages claim and ensuing financial worth discovery until the trial court makes a
determination that there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for recovery of punitive
damages." Cf. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995) (holding
that in the context of section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1993), the punitive-damages
statute is generally applicable to civil actions). Because a plenary appeal cannot
restore a defendant's statutory right under section 400.0237, we have certiorari
jurisdiction to determine whether the trial court complied with the procedural
requirements of section 400.0237 in granting Sanders' motion for leave to amend. See
Globe Newspaper Co., 658 So. 2d at 519-20 (holding that appellate courts have
certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial court "has conformed with the procedural
-2-
requirements of section 768.72" and "should grant certiorari in instances in which there
is a demonstration by a petitioner that the procedures of section 768.72 have not been
followed").
We conclude that it did not. When a plaintiff moves to amend a complaint
under chapter 400 to assert a claim for punitive damages, the trial court must
conduct a hearing to determine whether there is sufficient
admissible evidence submitted by the parties to ensure that
there is a reasonable basis to believe that the claimant, at
trial, will be able to demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence that the recovery of such damages is warranted
under a claim for direct liability . . . or under a claim for
vicarious liability.
§ 400.0237(1)(b). To establish direct liability, the evidence would have to show that the
nursing home defendants "actively and knowingly participated in intentional misconduct
or engaged in conduct that constitutes gross negligence and contributed to the loss,
damages, or injury suffered by the claimant." See § 400.0237(2). To establish
vicarious liability, the evidence would have to show that an employee or agent of the
nursing home defendants had engaged in the above conduct and that "an officer,
director, or manager of [the nursing home defendants] condoned, ratified, or consented
to the specific conduct." See § 400.0237(3).
The trial court's order gave multiple appalling examples of staff dropping
the ball when it came to Ms. Curry's care. But as commonsensical as it may seem that
such incidents could only result from an institutional breakdown, the order identified no
admissible evidence that supported the court's attribution of the staff's conduct to the
nursing home defendants under a theory of either direct or vicarious liability. It identified
no admissible evidence implicating the nursing home defendants even in ordinary
-3-
negligence—by, say, a failure to adequately staff or a failure to adequately train—let
alone in either intentional misconduct or gross negligence. And it identified no
admissible evidence indicating that any officer, director, or manager of the nursing
home defendants had "condoned, ratified, or consented to" any of the staff's actions or
incidents of inaction. See id.
The trial court, therefore, failed to ensure, based on sufficient admissible
evidence, that there is a reasonable basis to believe that Sanders, at trial, will be able to
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the recovery of punitive damages is
warranted against either or both of the nursing home defendants under a claim for either
direct or vicarious liability. Because the court did not follow the procedural requirements
of section 400.0237, we grant the nursing home defendants' petition and quash the
order granting leave to amend.
Petition granted; order quashed.
KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
-4-