| Date issued: 04/19/2011 | |
| Editor: Betsy Stupski |  |
Clicking the icon following the number of each case cited below will link you directly to the cited opinion. AG Advisory Opinions are accessible from the list of links.
Appellate Alert 2011-8
April 19, 2011
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Fowler v. Orange, County Florida 05-14899
Plaintiff failed to prove disparate treatment because her comparators were not substantially similar.
A female corrections officer became acquainted with an inmate. They had contact on a number of occasions. Later when the inmate was transferred to another facility the two pursued a romantic relationship and were eventually married. Later the corrections officer was terminated for fraternizing with an inmate. She brought suit for racial discrimination and marital status discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Orange County.
The question before the Eleventh Circuit was whether there were similarly situated employees outside the Plaintiff’s class who were treated differently. While the Plaintiff cited several examples where corrections officers had been disciplined differently for fraternization, the court found that those comparators were not valid because the facts surrounding their discipline were substantially different. The Eleventh Circuit went on to determine that the Plaintiff was dismissed because of her fraternization with an inmate not because of her marital status.
05-14899 Burke-Fowler.pdf
First District Court of Appeal Schmidt v. Van 1D10-4206
4/15/11
Jury was free to reject expert testimony.
Parties were in an automobile accident and Van claimed injuries that required spinal surgery. Schmidt argued that Van’s injuries were caused by earlier events including a 1998 automobile accident. Although Van presented three medical experts that opined that his injuries were caused at least in part by the accident with Schmidt, the jury found in favor of Schmidt. However, the trial court found that the jury’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial.
The First District reversed and remanded the case ordering the trial court to enter judgment consistent with the jury verdict. After noting that there was lay testimony that portrayed the accident as only a mild a fender bender, the Court said that the jury was free to reject expert testimony even if it was uncontradicted.
1D10-4206 Schmidt.pdf
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida v. Outpatient Surgery Center 1D09-4882
4/15/11
Statutory dispute resolution process was not unconstitutional because it was voluntary.
The Florida Statutes include a process for dispute resolution between health plans and healthcare providers. The process involves a review of documentation but does not include a hearing or testimony. Blue Cross Blue Shield challenged the statutes as unconstitutional. They argued that the statutes denied access to the courts and due process. The trial court found the statutes to be constitutional.
The First District affirmed. The Court found that the dispute resolution process was voluntary and therefore did not violate the constitution.
1D09-4882
 1dcacv BlueCross v Outpatient.pdf
Second District Court of Appeal
Peak v. Outward Bound, Inc. 2D09-5980
4/13/11
Contractual relationship without more was not enough to entitle Outward Bound to sovereign immunity.
Peak sued Outward Bound for the wrongful death of her son. Outward Bound moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity as the contractual agent of the Department of Juvenile Justice. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
The Second District reversed, noting that it is insufficient for the purposes of granting sovereign immunity simply to show that there was a contract between an agency and service provider. In order to grant dismissal it would also have to be clear from the complaint that the Outward Bound staff was acting within the scope of and pursuant to guidelines established in the contract or by rule. Peak’s complaint actually stated the opposite…that Outward Bound was acting outside the scope of employment. As a result the case remanded back to the trial court.
2D09-5980 2dcacv Peak v Outward Bound.doc
|
Print Version