FL: hospital's proposal for settlement ignored:over $160,000 in legal fees awarded hospital.

CASE FACTS: Thomas Kee and his wife filed suit against Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation as well as several other defendants, including another hospital and several physicians who treated Mr. Kee for damages resulting from a stroke, which the defendants allegedly failed to timely diagnose and treat. Baptist Hospital filed its Proposal for Settlement with the court. The proposal required the Kees to execute both a General Release and Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement. The Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement obligated the Kees to hold the hospital harmless and indemnify the hospital from existing or potential liens or other claim, which any person or entity may have on the damages sought by the Kees from the hospital. The Kees did not respond to the proposal, and the underlying litigation continued for several years. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital and entered final judgment awarding the hospital fees and costs in the sum of $160, 912.80. The Kees appealed.

COURT'S OPINION: The Court of Appeals of Florida affirmed the order and judgment, which included the attorneys' fees awarded to the hospital. The court held, inter alia, that it had to conclude that the language of the settlement proposal filed by the hospital limited recovery against the hospital to claims arising in relation to this case, and in no way interfered with the Kees' ability to recover against any third party. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Proposal for Settlement was not too ambiguous. The court cited numerous Florida cases as precedent for its decision in the case. The court noted that cases, which were cited by the Kees were distinguishable from the case at bar because they contained proposals for settlement, which were ambiguous. Conversely, the court noted that the hospital's proposal for settlement with the Kees was not ambiguous but very clear and straight forward. The court rejected the Kees' contention that the Proposal for Settlement was ambiguous as to whether or not the Kees' counsel was required to guarantee payment of any hospital liens to the extent that these were satisfied and extinguished. Furthermore, the court rejected the Kees' contention that the hospital's offer of settlement was not made in good faith, an argument which the Kees inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal. Editor's Note: This case should serve as a reminder for counsel representing hospitals as well as those suing hospitals. First, it would be prudent that whenever possible hospital counsel file Proposals for Settlement. Conversely, opposing counsel should be put on notice of the consequences of ignoring such proposals. Kee v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., 2007 FLCA3 D-2476 - (10/0312007) So.2d -FL

Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode island firm of A, David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United Slates. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.