The Issue Whether Loren Romine, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan). If so, whether Petitioners' recovery, through settlement of a civil action for medical malpractice against the treating obstetrician and hospital, bars them from recovering benefits under the Plan.
Findings Of Fact Findings related to compensability John Romine and Rebecca Romine are husband and wife, as well as the natural parents and court-appointed guardians of the property of Loren Romine (Loren), a minor. Loren was born January 26, 1998, at Columbia Regional Medical Center - Oak Hill, a hospital located in Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, and her birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services at Loren's birth was Samir Shakfeh, M.D., who, at all times material hereto, was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who have suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation . . . occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes. See also Section 766.309(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Here, the parties have stipulated, and the proof is otherwise compelling, that Loren sustained a "birth-related neurological injury," as that term is defined by the Plan. Findings related to the settlement of the civil action On December 29, 1998, the Romine family served a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, pursuant to Section 766.106, Florida Statutes, on Dr. Shakfeh and Columbia Regional Medical Center - Oak Hill. At the conclusion of the 90-day pre-suit screening period, both the doctor and the hospital denied the claim and on April 12, 1999, the Romine family filed suit against the doctor and the hospital in the Circuit Court of Hernando County. That case was styled John Romine and Rebecca Romine, as parents and next friends of Loren Romine, a minor, and John Romine and Rebecca Romine, individually, Plaintiffs, v. HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Columbia Regional Medical Center - Oak Hill, and Samir Shakfeh, M.D., Defendants, Case No. 99-857-CA01-Law. Both the doctor and the hospital denied liability and raised, as an affirmative defense, Plan immunity. Petitioners replied to that defense, and alleged that the doctor and the hospital failed to provide notice as required by the Plan. Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. On November 29, 2000, the hospital filed a Motion to Abate the civil action until the Romines filed a petition for Plan benefits with the Division of Administrative Hearings and an administrative law judge had resolved whether Loren had suffered a compensable injury and whether the doctor and the hospital had complied with the notice provisions of the Plan. O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 757 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)("All questions of compensability, including those which arise regarding the adequacy of notice, are properly decided in the administrative forum.") The Motion to Abate was never set for hearing, and the case proceeded to mediation on December 7, 2000. Following mediation, the Romine family, the doctor, and the hospital, as well as the doctor's and the hospital's malpractice insurance carriers, reached an agreement to settle the civil suit. The settlement provided for an immediate cash payment to John Romine, Rebecca Romine, and Loren Romine, and the purchase of annuities for each of them. The total present value of the settlement was $5,250,000. The written agreement between the Romines and the hospital included the following stipulation: The parties agree that no part of the Settlement is intended to impair in any manner plaintiff's rights to pursue NICA benefits nor is it intended to be a release of any NICA benefits that may be due plaintiffs. It has always been and remains the position of the Defendant that this claim is covered by NICA. The Defendant agrees that it will take no action and refrain from doing anything to defeat or disparage plaintiff's NICA claim in any way . . . . The written settlement agreement between the Romines and the doctor contained a similar stipulation. On or about January 18, 2001, the Romines filed a Petition for Approval and Apportionment of Settlement Involving Minor in the civil suit. And, on or about January 23, 2001, the Guardian Ad Litem filed a written report with the court, and recommended approval of the settlement and apportionment of the settlement as proposed by the Romines. A hearing was held before the trial court on January 26, 2001, and on the same date the trial court entered an order granting the Petition for Approval and Apportionment of Settlement. The order further provided, as follows: 3. Nothing about this settlement is intended by the parties or this Court to limit or reduce the amount of compensation which may be recoverable by the Petitioners or LOREN ROMINE in a subsequent NICA proceeding, or from any other governmental program or private health insuror. NICA was not a party to the settlement agreements entered into between the Romine family and the healthcare providers, nor was it advised of and nor did it participate in the hearing on the Petition for Approval and Apportionment of Settlement. After the settlement was approved by the trial court, the settlement funds were disbursed to the Romines and releases were exchanged. Petitioners filed their claim for benefits under the Plan on June 14, 2001, seeking actual expenses for, inter alia, Loren's medical and hospital care, and a lump sum award to Mr. and Mrs. Romine of $100,000.
The Issue The petition (claim) filed on behalf of Petitioners presented the following issues for resolution:1 Whether the claim is compensable under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensable Plan (Plan). Whether the notice provisions of the Plan were satisfied. Whether the exclusiveness of remedy provision of the Plan is an available defense to a nurse midwife or hospital when no civil claim has been made against the participating physician. Whether the amendments to Sections 766.301(1)(d) and 766.304, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), which accorded the administrative forum exclusive jurisdiction to resolve whether claims are covered by the Plan, may be applied retroactively.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Maria Ferguson (formerly known as Maria Mish) and Garry Ferguson, are the parents and natural guardians of Casey Ferguson, a minor. Casey was born a live infant on January 28, 1997, at Morton Plant Mease Health Care, Inc., d/b/a Mease Hospital Dunedin (Mease Hospital), a hospital located in Dunedin, Florida, and her birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician who provided obstetrical services during Casey's birth was Harvey A. Levin, M.D., and he was, at the time, a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Services were also provided during the course of birth by Lenore V. McCall, a certified nurse midwife (C.N.M.). At the time, Ms. McCall had not paid the assessment requirement by Section 766.314(4)(c) and (5)(a), Florida Statutes, and was not a "participating physician" in the Plan. Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who suffer a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation . . . occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." Sections 766.302(2) and 766.309(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Here, NICA has concluded, and the parties have stipulated, that Casey suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as defined by the Plan. NICA's conclusion, as well as the parties' stipulation, is grossly consistent with the record. Consequently, since obstetrical services were provided by a participating physician at birth, the claim is compensable, and NICA's proposal to accept the claim is approved.3 Sections 766.309(1) and 766.31(1), Florida Statutes. Notice of Plan participation While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners have responded to the health care providers' claim of Plan immunity by contending that the participating physician who delivered obstetrical services at birth (Dr. Levin), as well as the hospital (Mease Hospital), failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan.4 Consequently, it is necessary to resolve whether, as alleged by the health care providers, the notice provisions of the Plan were satisfied. O'Leary v. Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 757 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and University of Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Pertinent to this issue, it is worthy of note that, at the time of Casey's birth, Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, prescribed the notice requirements, as follows: Notice to obstetrical patients of participation in the plan.--Each hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician . . . under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients thereof as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth- related neurological injuries. Such notice shall be provided on forms furnished by the association and shall include a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan. It is further worthy of note that NICA developed a brochure titled "Peace of Mind for An Unexpected Problem" to comply with the statutory mandate, and distributed the brochure to participating physicians and hospitals so they could furnish the brochure (form) to their patients. Turning now to the case at hand, it is observed that Mrs. Ferguson received her prenatal care at A Woman's Place, an office maintained for the practice of obstetrics and gynecology by Harvey A. Levin, M.D., and A. Trent Williams, M.D., at 5347 Main Street, Suite 302, New Port Richey, Florida. Also active in the practice were a number of midwives, including Lenore McCall. Of note, Doctors Levin and Williams delivered exclusively at Mease Hospital Dunedin. Regarding her care, the proof demonstrates that Mrs. Ferguson's initial visit to A Woman's Place occurred on May 30, 1996. As would be expected, Mrs. Ferguson initially presented to the front window (front desk), registered her presence (by writing her name on the pad at the front window), and then took a seat in the waiting room. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Ferguson was recalled to the front window and given a number of forms (referred to as a packet in this proceeding) to fill out, date, sign, and return before she could be seen by a healthcare provider. Among the documents she completed and returned to the front desk was a form titled Notice to Obstetric Patient,5 which provided: NOTICE TO OBSTETRIC PATIENT (See Section 766.316, Florida Statutes) I have been furnished information by A WOMAN'S PLACE AND/OR MEASE HOSPITAL prepared by the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, and have been advised that Drs. Levin and Williams are participating physicians in that program, wherein certain limited compensation is available in the event certain neurological injury may occur during labor, delivery or resuscitation. For specifics on the program, I understand I can contact the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA), Barnett Bank Building, 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 312, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, (904) 488-8191. I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of the brochure prepared by NICA. DATED this day of , 199 . Signature (NAME OF PATIENT) Social Security Number Attest: (Nurse or Physician) Date: Here, Mrs. Ferguson acknowledges receipt of the Notice to Obstetric Patient, and therefore notice that Doctors Levin and Williams were participants in the Plan, but denies receipt of the brochure prepared by NICA. Notably, it is that brochure, titled Peace of Mind for An Unexpected Problem, which contains the "clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the [P]lan" required by the notice provisions of Section 766.316, Florida Statutes.6 In response to Mrs. Ferguson's denial, and to buttress its argument that Mrs. Ferguson received the brochure, Mease Hospital offered proof regarding the customary practice employed by A Woman's Place for all new patients. According to Joanie Perkins, the OB coordinator, all new patients were routinely handed a number of forms (the packet) to fill out on their first visit, including the Notice to Obstetric Patient, with a copy of the NICA brochure attached. The packets were prepared by Ms. Perkins once or twice a month in quantities of 20 or 30, and stored at her desk until needed. Then, the day preceding a new patient's first visit, she would place a packet inside the new patient's file (also referred to as a chart) and give the file to the front desk clerk. On arrival, the front desk clerk would hand the packet (on a clipboard) to the new patient. When returned to the clerk, the forms were then given back to Ms. Perkins, who would put them in the patient's chart. Following completion of the forms, a new patient was routinely seen by Ms. Perkins, who entered certain basic information on the patient's antepartum record (such as, the date of the first visit; the patient's name, address, date of birth, and insurance carrier; the hospital where delivery was to occur; and height and weight). It was also during this period that Ms. Perkins routinely distributed to the new patient what was referred to as the OB packet. That packet included a folder from Mease Hospital (also referred to by the hospital as their baby book), which contained information about the hospital and other materials, including pre-registration papers. The OB packet also included a prenatal care booklet, as well as education materials pertaining to Lamaze and exercise classes, and information pertaining to anesthesia. Samples of pre-natal vitamins, coupons for diaper bags, and other miscellaneous materials were also included in the OB packet. Following her meeting with Ms. Perkins, the new patient was then referred to a physician or nurse midwife to complete her initial visit. Contrasted with the conclusion one would draw from her acknowledgment execution of the Notice to Obstetric Patient and the customary practice of A Woman's Place, Mrs. Ferguson testified that not only was the NICA brochure not attached to the notice she signed, but the only items she received that day were a book titled Child Birth Planner and some prenatal vitamins. The reasons for Mrs. Ferguson's statements are two-fold. First, according to Mrs. Ferguson, she recalls that one of the forms referred to an attachment or additional document that was not included, and that when she brought this oversight to the attention of the front desk clerk she was unable to locate one. Of note, the only form Mrs. Ferguson signed that day that referred to another document she should have received was the Notice to Obstetric Patient. Second, Mrs. Ferguson observed that she is compulsive regarding the retention of documents, and that with regard to her pregnancy with Casey she retained every document she received from, inter alia, A Woman's Place and Mease Hospital. Those documents, which Mrs. Ferguson identified as Petitioners' Exhibit 5A-5Y at hearing, did not include a NICA brochure or a Mease Hospital baby book, but did include two pages of education materials pertaining to Lamaze and exercise classes, and information pertaining to anesthesia, all of which were customarily included in the new patient OB packet. Also included was a booklet Mrs. Ferguson received when she participated in a tour of the Mease Hospital Maternity Center. Of note, the availability of Maternity Center tours was a topic addressed in the hospital's baby book. Here, giving due consideration to the proof, it must be resolved that, more likely than not, Mrs. Ferguson received the NICA brochure on her initial visit, as evidenced by her signature on the Notice to Obstetric Patient and as one would anticipate from the customary practice of A Woman's Place. It is further resolved that, more likely than not, Mrs. Ferguson received the OB packet on her initial visit, which included a Mease Hospital baby book. In concluding that Mrs. Ferguson did receive a copy of the NICA brochure on her initial visit, the testimony of Mrs. Ferguson to the contrary, has clearly not been overlooked. However, Mrs. Ferguson's testimony, both in deposition and at hearing, demonstrates that she had very little recall of the events which took place during her initial visit. Moreover, while Mrs. Ferguson suggests that the front desk clerk could not locate a NICA brochure, the compelling proof reflects that the brochures were readily available and that staff was aware they could be obtained at Ms. Perkins' desk. In concluding that Mrs. Ferguson also received the OB packet on her initial visit, the testimony of Mrs. Ferguson to the contrary has also not been overlooked. However, for reasons similar to those noted with regard to the NICA brochure, Mrs. Ferguson's testimony has been found unpersuasive. While Mrs. Ferguson received notice on behalf of the participating physician, the proof failed to demonstrate that Mease Hospital provided any pre-delivery notice, as envisioned by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. Moreover, there was no proof offered to support a conclusion that the hospital's failure to accord Mrs. Ferguson pre-delivery notice was occasioned by a medical emergency or that the giving of notice was otherwise not practicable. In reaching such conclusion, the inclusion of the hospital's name in the Notice to Obstetric Patient provided by A Woman's Place to Mrs. Ferguson has not been overlooked. However, the reason the hospital's name was included on the form stands unexplained, and there is no proof that A Woman's Place was requested or authorized to provide notice on behalf of the hospital. Indeed, for all that appears of record, the inclusion of the hospital's name was gratuitous, and can hardly be deemed to satisfy the hospital's independent obligation under Section 766.316, to provide notice to Mrs. Ferguson.7 Finally, in concluding that the hospital did not provide pre-delivery notice as envisioned by the Plan, the testimony offered by the hospital (through the deposition of Rosemary Atkinson, Intervenor's Exhibit 1), wherein she testified that the hospital routinely included a copy of the NICA brochure in its baby book, has likewise not been overlooked. However, given the absence of proof regarding the manner in which the hospital's baby books were assembled, the method employed to distribute them to physicians, and the manner in which the books were safeguarded at the physician's office prior to distribution, such proof is inadequate to allow a conclusion to be drawn with any sense of confidence that a baby book given to a patient, such as Mrs. Ferguson, contained a NICA brochure. Moreover, even if it could be demonstrated that the baby book contained a copy of the NICA brochure (commingled with other papers) when it was given to Mrs. Ferguson, the absence of any statement or explanation to draw her attention to the brochure, or its significance, could hardly be considered notice as that word is commonly understood and as that word is used in the Plan.
The Issue Whether Isabelle Dianderas, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan). If so, whether the hospital and the participating physician gave the patient notice, as contemplated by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, or whether notice was not required because the patient had an "emergency medical condition," as defined by Section 395.002(9)(b), Florida Statutes, or the giving of notice was not practicable.
Findings Of Fact Findings related to compensability Maribenny Dianderas and Arturo Dianderas are the natural parents and guardians of Isabelle Dianderas, a minor. Isabelle was born a live infant on October 8, 2002, at Florida Hospital, a hospital located in Orlando, Florida, and her birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services at Isabelle's birth was Natasha M. Knight, M.D., who, at all times material hereto, was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who suffer a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation . . . occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." § 766.302(2), Fla. Stat. See also §§ 766.309(1) and 766.31(1), Fla. Stat. Here, the proof is compelling, and uncontroverted, that Isabelle suffered an injury to the brain caused by oxygen deprivation in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in the hospital that rendered her permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. (Joint Exhibits 1-4; Transcript, pages 125-145). Consequently, the record demonstrated that Isabelle suffered a "birth-related neurological injury" and, since obstetrical services were provided by a "participating physician" at birth, the claim is compensable. §§ 766.309(1) and 766.31(1), Fla. Stat. The notice issue While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners would prefer to pursue their civil remedies, and avoid a claim of Plan immunity by the healthcare providers in a civil action. Therefore, Petitioners have averred, and requested a finding that, the hospital and the participating physician who delivered obstetrical services at Isabelle's birth, failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. See Galen of Florida, Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1997)("[A]s a condition precedent to invoking the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan as a patient's exclusive remedy, health care providers must, when practicable, give their obstetrical patients notice of their participation in the plan a reasonable time prior to delivery.") Consequently, it is necessary to resolve whether the notice provisions of the Plan were satisfied.1 The notice provisions of the Plan At all times material hereto, Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, prescribed the notice requirements of the Plan, as follows: Each hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician, other than residents, assistant residents, and interns deemed to be participating physicians under s. 766.314(4)(c), under the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries. Such notice shall be provided on forms furnished by the association and shall include a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan. The hospital or the participating physician may elect to have the patient sign a form acknowledging receipt of the notice form. Signature of the patient acknowledging receipt of the notice form raises a rebuttable presumption that the notice requirements of this section have been met. Notice need not be given to a patient when the patient has an emergency medical condition as defined in s. 395.002(9)(b) or when notice is not practicable. Section 395.002(9)(b), Florida Statutes, defines "emergency medical condition" to mean: (b) With respect to a pregnant woman: That there is inadequate time to effect safe transfer to another hospital prior to delivery; That a transfer may pose a threat to the health and safety of the patient or fetus; or That there is evidence of the onset and persistence of uterine contractions[2] or rupture of the membranes. The Plan does not define "practicable." However, "practicable" is a commonly understood word that, as defined by Webster's dictionary, means "capable of being done, effected, or performed; feasible." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Second Edition (1979). See Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281, 286 (Fla. 2001)("When necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning of words [in a statute] can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary."). The NICA brochure Responding to Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, NICA developed a brochure (as the "form" prescribed by the Plan), titled "Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem" (the NICA brochure), which contained an explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the Plan, and distributed the brochure to participating physicians and hospitals so they could furnish a copy of it to their obstetrical patients. (Joint Exhibit 5). Pertinent to this case, the NICA brochure applicable to Mrs. Dianderas' prenatal care and Isabelle's birth provided: The birth of a baby is an exciting and happy time. You have every reason to expect that the birth will be normal and that both mother and child will go home healthy and happy. Unfortunately, despite the skill and dedication of doctors and hospitals, complications during birth sometimes occur. Perhaps the worst complication is one which results in damage to the newborn's nervous system - called a "neurological injury." Such an injury may be catastrophic, physically, financially and emotionally. In an effort to deal with this serious problem, the Florida Legislature, in 1988, passed a law which created a Plan that offers an alternative to lengthy malpractice litigation processes brought about when a child suffers a qualifying neurological injury at birth. The law created the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA). EXCLUSIVE REMEDY The law provides that awards under the Plan are exclusive. This means that if an injury is covered by the Plan, the child and its family are not entitled to compensation through malpractice lawsuits. CRITERIA AND COVERAGE Birth-related neurological injuries have been defined as an injury to the spinal cord or brain of a live-born infant weighing at least 2500 grams at birth. In the case of multiple gestation, the live birth weight is 2000 grams for each infant. The injury must have been caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury, which occurred in the course of labor, delivery or resuscitation in the immediate post delivery period in a hospital. Only hospital births are covered. The injury must have rendered the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. The legislation does not apply to genetic or congenital abnormalities. Only injuries to infants delivered by participating physicians, as defined in s. 766.302(7), Florida Statutes, are covered by the Plan. COMPENSATION Compensation may be provided for the following: Actual expenses for necessary and reasonable care, services, drugs, equipment, facilities and travel, excluding expenses that can be compensated by state or federal government or by private insurers. In addition, an award, not to exceed $100,000 to the infant's parents or guardians. Funeral expenses are authorized up to $1,500. Reasonable expenses for filing the claim, including attorney's fees. NICA is one of only two (2) such programs in the nation, and is devoted to managing a fund that provides compensation to parents whose child may suffer a qualifying birth-related neurological injury. The Plan takes the "No-Fault" approach for all parties involved. This means that no costly litigation is required and the parents of a child qualifying under the law who file a claim with the Division of Administrative Hearings may have all actual expenses for medical and hospital care paid by the Plan. You are eligible for this protection if your doctor is a participating physician in the NICA Plan. If your doctor is a participating physician, that means that your doctor has purchased this benefit for you in the event that your child should suffer a birth-related neurological injury, which qualifies under the law. If your health care provider has provided you with a copy of this informational form, your health care provider is placing you on notice that one or more physician(s) at your health care provider participates in the NICA Plan. (Joint Exhibit 5). Here, Petitioners contend the brochure prepared by NICA was insufficient to satisfy the notice provision of the Plan (which requires that the form "include a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan"), because it failed to include an explanation of the civil remedies a patient would forego if she chose a participating provider. (Transcript, pages 11-13). However, neither Galen of Florida, Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1997), the authority relied upon by Petitioners, nor the notice provision of the Plan, place such an obligation on NICA in the formulation of the brochure. In Galen, supra, the Court had for consideration the following question certified to be of great public importance: WHETHER SECTION 766.316, FLORIDA STATUTES (1993), REQUIRES THAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS GIVE THEIR OBSTETRICAL PATIENTS PRE-DELIVERY NOTICE OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE FLORIDA BIRTH RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION PLAN AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE PROVIDERS' INVOKING NICA AS THE PATIENTS' EXCLUSIVE REMEDY? Id. at 308. In answer to the certified question, the Court held: . . . as a condition precedent to invoking the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan as a patient's exclusive remedy, health care providers must, when practicable, give their obstetrical patients notice of their participation in the plan a reasonable time prior to delivery. Id. at 309. The Court reasoned, as follows: Section 766.316 provides in pertinent part: Each hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician . . . under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients thereof as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth- related neurological injuries. Such notice shall be provided on forms furnished by the association and shall include a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan. Without exception the district courts of appeal that have addressed the issue have read section 766.316 to require pre-delivery notice . . . . We agree with the district courts that the only logical reading of the statute is that before an obstetrical patient's remedy is limited by the NICA plan, the patient must be given pre-delivery notice of the health care provider's participation in the plan. Section 766.316 requires that obstetrical patients be given notice "as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries." That notice must "include a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan." § 766.316. This language makes clear that the purpose of the notice is to give an obstetrical patient an opportunity to make an informed choice between using a health care provider participating in the NICA plan or using a provider who is not a participant and thereby preserving her civil remedies. Turner v. Hubrich, 656 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In order to effectuate this purpose a NICA participant must give a patient notice of the "no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries" a reasonable time prior to delivery, when practicable. Our construction of the statute is supported by its legislative history. Florida's Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan was proposed by the 1987 Academic Task Force for Review of the Insurance and Tort Systems. In its November 6, 1987 report, the Task Force recommended adoption of a no-fault compensation plan for birth-related neurological injuries similar to the then newly enacted Virginia plan (1987 Va. Acts Ch. 540). Academic Task Force for Review of the Insurance and Tort Systems, Medical Malpractice Recommendations 31 (Nov. 6, 1987)(hereinafter Task Force Report). However, the Task Force was concerned that the Virginia legislation did not contain a notice requirement and recommended that the Florida plan contain such a requirement. The Task Force believed that notice was necessary to ensure that the plan was fair to obstetrical patients1 and to shield the plan from constitutional challenge.2 The Task Force explained in its report: The Virginia statute does not require participating physicians and hospitals to give notice to obstetrical patients that they are participating in the limited no- fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries. The Task Force recommends that health care providers who participate under this plan should be required to provide reasonable notice to patients of their participation. This notice requirement is justified on fairness grounds and arguably may be required in order to assure that the limited no fault alternative is constitutional. Task Force Report at 34 (emphasis added). Since Florida's NICA plan was the result of the Task Force's report, it is only logical to conclude that the plan's notice requirement was included in the Florida legislation as a result of this recommendation and therefore was intended to be a condition precedent to immunity under the plan. * * * Under our reading of the statute, in order to preserve their immune status, NICA participants who are in a position to notify their patients of their participation a reasonable time before delivery simply need to give the notice in a timely manner. In those cases where it is not practicable to notify the patient prior to delivery, pre- delivery notice will not be required. Whether a health care provider was in a position to give a patient pre-delivery notice of participation and whether notice was given a reasonable time before delivery will depend on the circumstances of each case and therefore must be determined on a case-by-case basis . . . . Accordingly, we answer the certified question as explained herein and approve the decision under review. Id. at 309-311. 1 The Task Force obviously believed that because not all health care providers are required to participate in the NICA plan, fairness requires that the patient be made aware that she has limited her common law remedies by choosing a participating provider. 2 The Task Force also must have recognized that failure to require notice would open the plan up to constitutional attack. For example, the Braniffs argue that if pre- delivery notice is not a condition precedent to immunity under the plan, patients will be deprived of their common law remedies without due process. However, because of our resolution of the notice issue, we need not reach the merit of this procedural due process challenge. Notably, the Court was not asked to resolve, and did not resolve, whether the obligation to provide a form that "include[d] a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan," required an explanation of the civil remedies a patient would forego if she chose a participating provider. Moreover, the unambiguous language the Legislature chose evidences no such intention. Rather, the Plan requires that the form "include a clear ['[f]ree from doubt or confusion']3 and concise ['[e]xpressing much in few words; succinct']4 explanation ['the process of making plain or comprehensible']5 of the patients' rights and limitations under the plan," and does not include an obligation to explain a patient's potential civil remedies at common law or otherwise. Rinella v. Abifaraj, 908 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)("Where the plain and ordinary meaning of statutory language is unambiguous, we cannot construe the statute in a manner that would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications."); Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281, 287 (Fla. 2001)(quoting Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999))("[I]t is a basic principle of statutory construction that Courts 'are not at liberty to add words to statutes that are not placed there by the Legislature.'"); Crutcher v. School Board of Broward County, 834 So. 2d 228, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)("When a court construes a statute, its goal is to ascertain legislative intent, and if the language of the statute under scrutiny is clear and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction beyond giving effect to the plain meaning of the statutory words."); American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida v. Williams, 212 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)("Words of common usage should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense."). The brochure prepared by NICA satisfies the legislative mandate. Jackson v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D8676 (Fla. 5th DCA March 24, 2006)("The ALJ properly recognized that NICA developed a pamphlet titled 'Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem.' The pamphlet contains a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the NICA plan, as is required by the terms of the statute.")(petition for rehearing pending). Findings related to the participating physician and notice Mrs. Dianderas received her prenatal care at Loch Haven OB/GYN Group, Orlando, Florida, a group practice comprised of a number of physicians, including Natasha M. Knight, M.D., and dedicated to the practice of obstetrics and gynecology. At the time, Loch Haven, like Florida Hospital, was owned by Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.; however, patients, including Mrs. Dianderas, were not noticed, by signage or otherwise, of the relationship the business entities shared. On February 14, 2002, Mrs. Dianderas presented to Loch Haven for her initial visit. At the time, consistent with established practice for new obstetric patients, Mrs. Dianderas was given a copy of the NICA brochure, together with a Notice to Obstetric Patient (to acknowledge receipt of the NICA brochure). The Notice to Obstetric Patient provided, as follows: Notice to Obstetric Patient I have been furnished with information by the Loch Haven OB/GYN as prepared by the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association and have been advised that the physicians of the Loch Haven OB/GYN Group are participating members in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association. This Plan provides that certain limited compensation is available in event certain birth-related neurological injuries may occur during labor, delivery or post-delivery resuscitation, irrespective of fault. For specifics on the Plan, I understand I can contact the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation association (NICA), Post office Box 14567, Tallahassee, Florida 32317-04567, (904) 488-8191 or 1- 800-3982129: I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of the form brochure prepared and furnished by the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association. Patient Signature Date Print Name Social Security Number D.O.B. Witness Date Mrs. Dianderas completed the form, by providing the requested information (name, social security number, and date of birth), and then signed and dated the form. Beverly Bailey, the medical assistant who saw Mrs. Dianderas on her initial visit, witnessed her signature. Here, Mrs. Dianderas acknowledges she signed the Notice to Obstetric Patient, but has no current recollection of having done so, and has no current recollection of whether she was or was not given a copy of the NICA brochure. (Transcript, pages 39-41 and 54-58). Moreover, Petitioners candidly concede, they can offer no proof to rebut the presumption that the notice provisions were met by the participating physician. (Transcript, pages 9, 55, 56, and 278). Consequently, since the NICA brochure complied with the requirements of Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, the participating physician satisfied the notice provisions of the Plan. However, notwithstanding the common ownership of Loch Haven and Florida Hospital by Adventist, they were separate business entities, and the notice by Loch Haven (on behalf of its physicians) did not satisfy Florida Hospital's obligation to give notice. § 766.316, Fla. Stat. ("Each hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician . . . shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries."); Board of Regents v. Athey, 694 So. 2d 46, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)("Under section 766.316 . . . notice on behalf of the hospital will not by itself satisfy the notice requirement imposed on the participating physician(s) involved in the delivery " Conversely, it reasonably follows, notice on behalf of the participating physician will not by itself satisfy the notice requirement imposed on the hospital.) Findings related to the hospital and notice To support an inference that it complied with the notice provisions of the Plan, the hospital offered proof of the practice it followed to provide a copy of the NICA brochure and Notice to Obstetric Patient form (acknowledgment form)6 to each patient who presented to labor and delivery.7 See Tabb v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 880 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, Mrs. Dianderas presented to the labor and delivery on two occasions (September 29, 2002, and October 7, 2002), during which the hospital had an opportunity to provide notice, and during which the hospital claims it provided notice.8 With regard to Mrs. Dianderas' first admission, the proof demonstrates that at or about 7:25 p.m., Sunday, September 29, 2002, Mrs. Dianderas, with an estimated delivery date of October 14, 2002, and the fetus at 37+ weeks' gestation, presented to labor and delivery, at Florida Hospital, with complaints of contractions. At the time, the finance window was closed, as it had been since 11:00 p.m., Friday, and would be until 6:00 a.m., Monday, and Mrs. Dianderas was admitted to the triage unit by Cynthia Hall, R.N., the on-duty triage nurse. Notably, Nurse Hall, who was responsible for completing all paperwork associated with Mrs. Dianderas' admission, attended Mrs. Dianderas from 7:25 p.m., until her discharge (after it was resolved Mrs. Dianderas was not in labor) at 12:19 a.m., September 30, 2002, except for a brief period (between 9:17 p.m., and 10:20 p.m.) when Mrs. Dianderas was taken for an ultrasound. With regard to notice, Nurse Hall, who routinely works weekends, testified that it was her practice, during her initial evaluation in triage, to provide the patient a copy of the NICA brochure, as well as an acknowledgment form and Consent to Treatment form to complete and sign. According to Nurse Hall, the forms were routinely signed in her presence, were routinely witnessed by her, and she routinely made a photocopy of the acknowledgment form and placed it on the finance clerk's desk (that was adjacent to her desk), so finance could update their computer records on Monday to reflect that the NICA brochure had been given. The original documents, including the original acknowledgment form, were placed in the patient's chart. Here, Nurse Hall is confident she followed her routine, and Mrs. Dianderas' chart does include a Consent to Treatment form signed by Mrs. Dianderas and witnessed by Nurse Hall. However, the chart does not include a signed acknowledgment form, as it should if Nurse Hall followed her routine practice, and she could offer no explanation for its absence. Also inexplicably, the finance records related to this visit (Intervenors' Exhibit 1A, pages 1 and 2), reveal that at 8:48 p.m. (20:48), September 29, 2002, a finance clerk identified as "RLCEE8" updated Mrs. Dianderas' record to reflect that a copy of the NICA brochure had been provided. Notably, according to Nurse Hall, who was in a position to know, the finance office (in which she would have placed a copy of the acknowledgment form) was not staffed at the time, and she could not explain those entries (which she did not and was not authorized to make). Moreover, at hearing, the hospital made no effort to identify "RLCEE8" or to otherwise explain how these entries occurred. Consequently, given such irregularities it cannot be inferred, with any sense of confidence, that the hospital or Nurse Hall's routine was followed during Mrs. Dianderas' September 29, 2002, admission, or that she was provided a copy of the NICA brochure. With regard to Mrs. Dianderas' second admission, which ultimately led to Isabelle's birth, the proof demonstrates that at 2:00 p.m., October 7, 2002, Mrs. Dianderas, with the fetus at 39 weeks' gestation, presented to labor and delivery, at Florida Hospital, on referral from her obstetrician for a nonstress test (NST), secondary to decreased fetal movement. At the time, the finance window was open, and Iris Miranda, a financial services representative was on duty. With regard to notice, Ms. Miranda testified (by publication of her deposition) regarding the routine she would have followed when Mrs. Dianderas presented to the finance window that afternoon. According to Ms. Miranda, that routine would have included giving Mrs. Dianderas a Consent for Treatment form to sign, as well as a copy of the NICA brochure and an acknowledgment form to sign and give to the nurse in labor and delivery. Here, Ms. Miranda is confident she followed her routine, and Mrs. Dianderas' chart does include a Consent to Treatment form signed by Mrs. Dianderas and witnessed by Ms. Miranda. Moreover, the finance department's records (Intervenors' Exhibit 1B, pages 1 and 2) include a computer entry at 2:03 p.m. (14:03), October 7, 2002, by Ms. Miranda (identified as "IVM76B") noting that a NICA brochure was provided. However, again the chart does not include a signed acknowledgment form, as it should if the hospital's routine was followed, and no compelling explanation for its absences was presented.9 Consequently, given the lack of a reasonable explanation for the irregularities that have been shown regarding the finance department's computer entries, as well as the absence of the acknowledgment form, it cannot be inferred with any sense of confidence that the hospital's routine was followed during Mrs. Dianderas' admission of October 7, 2002, or that Mrs. Dianderas was given a NICA brochure Finally, with regard to the hospital and the notice issue, it is noted that on presentation to Florida Hospital at 2:00 p.m., October 7, 2002, Mrs. Dianderas was not in labor, and insofar as the record reveals she was not thereafter in labor until sometime after her membranes were ruptured, at 4:55 p.m. More particularly, there was no "evidence of the onset and persistence of uterine contractions or rupture of the membranes" from 2:00 p.m., until 4:55 p.m., October 7, 2002. Moreover, there was no proof that, upon admission or until her membranes ruptured, "there [was] inadequate time to effect safe transfer to another hospital prior to delivery" or "[t]hat a transfer may pose a threat to the health and safety of the patient or fetus." Consequently, until 4:55 p.m., when her membranes were ruptured, Mrs. Dianderas did not have an "emergency medical condition," as defined by Section 395.002(9)(b), Florida Statutes, that would have excused the giving of notice. Moreover, there was no proof to support a conclusion that the giving of notice was not practicable. Jurisdiction
Findings Of Fact By stipulation dated August 26, 1993, and filed August 27, 1993, petitioners and respondent agreed "that for purposes of the disposition of this cause, relative to a ruling on that certain Motion to Dismiss filed by the Respondents under the date of March 17, 1993, the weight of Raquel Solorzano, at birth was 2,296 grams."
Findings Of Fact By stipulation filed December 2, 1993, petitioners and respondent stipulated as follows: That pursuant to Chapter 766.301- 766.316, Florida Statutes, a claim was filed on behalf of the above-styled infant against the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (the "Association") on behalf of Jasmin Soto, Violeta Rodriguez and Luis Soto (the "Petitioners") for benefits under Chapter 766.301-766.316 (F.S.) 1988. That a timely filed claim for benefits complying with the requirements of F.S. 766.305 was filed by the Petitioners and a timely denial was filed on behalf of the Association. That the infant, Jasmin Soto, was born at Baptist Hospital on September 29, 1990, and that the said hospital was a licensed Florida Hospital and the attending physician was a participating physician within the meaning of Chapter 766, Florida Statutes. That the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this claim. That Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, states that "birth-related neurological injury" means injury to the brain or spinal cord of a live infant weighing at least 2500 grams at birth caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post- delivery in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially, mentally and physically impaired. The parties agree that Jasmin Soto suffers from a right brachial plexus injury. That the parties stipulate to the authenticity of the medical records and/or medical reports of Michael Duchowny, M.D., who appears on behalf of the Respondents and Leon I. Charash, M.D., who appears on behalf of the Petitioner. While Dr. Charash has not been deposed, Dr. Duchowny has been deposed and his deposition is submitted as part of this Stipulation. The parties stipulate that there are no other pertinent medical facts to be considered by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties further Stipulate that if the parties were to proceed to a hearing on the merits no further proof would be offered and traditional burdens of proof would apply. Based upon this stipulation, the parties request the hearing officer to rule on Petitioner's claim based upon this Stipulation, the attached medical records and the deposition of Dr. Duchowny. The neurological examinations of Jasmin reveal that she suffered from a "mild" to "moderate" right Erb's palsy related directly to the right brachial plexus injury she received at birth. A brachial plexus injury, the cause of Erb's palsy, is not, however, a brain or spinal cord injury. Moreover, Jasmin's mental functioning is normal and not impaired due to any birth- related complications.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Paul Bryant Sivley, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact As observed in the preliminary statement, neither petitioner nor anyone on her behalf appeared at hearing, and no proof was offered to support her claim. Respondent, in light of such failure, declined the opportunity to offer any evidence. Consequently, there being no proof, it cannot be factually resolved whether Paul Bryant Sivley, a minor, suffered a "birth- related neurological injury" as alleged in the claim for benefits.
