The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Giuliano Gugelmin, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the Plan). If so, whether the notice requirements of the Plan were satisfied.
Findings Of Fact Mauricio Gugelmin and Stella Gugelmin are the parents and natural guardians of Giuliano Gugelmin (Giuliano), a minor. Giuliano was born a live infant on July 14, 1994, at South Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Hospital West (the Hospital), a hospital located in Broward County, Florida, and his birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services during the birth of Giuliano was Eric N. Freling, M.D., who was at all times material hereto, a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the 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 or mechanical injury 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, the parties have stipulated that Giuliano suffered a "birth- related neurological injury," as that term is defined by the Plan, and NICA proposes to accept the claim as compensable. The parties' stipulation is grossly consistent with the proof and, consequently, it is resolved that NICA's proposal to accept the claim as compensable is approved. While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners have responded to the health care providers' claim of Plan immunity in the collateral civil action by claiming that the health care providers failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. Consequently, it is necessary to resolve whether, as alleged, proper notice was given. Regarding the notice issue, it must be resolved that the proof failed to demonstrate, more likely than not, that Dr. Freling provided Mrs. Gugelmin any notice of his participation in the Plan or any explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the Plan. Indeed, the more compelling proof was to the contrary. Moreover, there was no proof to support a conclusion that Dr. Freling's failure to accord notice was occasioned by a medical emergency or that the giving of notice was otherwise not practicable. While Dr. Freling failed to give notice, the Hospital did, as required by law, provide timely notice to Mrs. Gugelmin as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries. That notice included, as required, an explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the Plan, and was given at 11:45 a.m., July 13, 1994, shortly after Mrs. Gugelmin's admission to the hospital (which occurred at approximately 11:22 a.m., July 13, 1994). Giuliano was delivered at 12:25 a.m., July 14, 1994.
The Issue Whether Hunter Lewis, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Angel Lewis and Jerry Lewis, are the parents and natural guardians of Hunter Lewis, a minor. Hunter was born a live infant on June 2, 2000, at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, a hospital located in Tallahassee, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services at Hunter's birth was Arthur S. Clements, 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.1 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 or mechanical injury 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 and 766.31, Fla. Stat. The cause and timing, as well as the significance of Hunter's neurologic impairment To address the cause and timing of Hunter's neurologic impairment, as well as its significance, Petitioners offered selected medical records relating to Hunter's birth and subsequent development (Petitioners' Exhibit 1); the Verified Medical Opinion of Richard J. Inwood, M.D., a neonatologist (Petitioners' Exhibit 2); and the deposition of Donald C. Willis, M.D., an obstetrician (Petitioners' Exhibit 3). In turn, Respondent offered the deposition of Paul R. Carney, M.D., a pediatric neurologist (Respondent's Exhibit 1). As for the significance of Hunter's impairments, it was Dr. Carney's opinion, based on the results of his neurologic evaluation of November 21, 2002, that Hunter's assessment "indicates substantial cognitive and language impairment," but "very mild long tract neurological findings." Dr. Carney described Hunter's developmental delay as static, as opposed to progressive, and he ventured no opinion as to the cause or timing of Hunter's impairments. As for Dr. Inwood, he was of the opinion that: . . . Hunter Lewis [ ] was delivered by induced labor prior to 38 weeks and had immature lungs. Because of the immaturity of the lungs he suffered hypoxic insult and, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, sustained significant neurological injury. This injury would not have occurred had his delivery been delayed until he had demonstrated lung maturity. His problems are not congenital and did not occur during labor or delivery, but rather after delivery . . . . Notably, Dr. Inwood did not further address Hunter's neurologic injury or, stated otherwise, did not speak to whether in his opinion, Hunter suffered both cognitive and motor impairment and, if so, the significance of each. As for Dr. Willis, he was of the opinion that the medical records revealed no evidence of oxygen deprivation or other trauma associated with labor, delivery, or resuscitation immediately following Hunter's birth. Significantly, the medical records are consistent with the opinions of Doctors Inwood and Willis that the cause and timing of Hunter's impairment was not associated with labor, delivery, or resuscitation, and with the opinion of Dr. Carney that, while Hunter may demonstrate substantial cognitive delay, his motor impairment is mild. Given the record, it must be concluded that the proof demonstrated, more likely than not, that Hunter's impairments were not occasioned by an injury to the brain caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in the hospital, and that he is not permanently and substantially physically impaired.
The Issue At issue is whether David Britt, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan. If so, whether the notice requirements of the Plan were satisfied.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Sandra Britt nee Sandra Nap and Frank Britt, are the parents and natural guardians of David Britt, a minor. David was born a live infant on November 9, 1997, at Tampa General Hospital, a hospital located in Tampa, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physicians providing obstetrical services during David's birth included the attending physician, Catherine Lynch, M.D., an attending faculty physician with the University of South Florida, College of Medicine, as well as a number of resident physicians from the University of South Florida, College of Medicine. At the time, Dr. Lynch was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, and the resident physicians, supervised by Dr. Lynch, were deemed participating physicians under the provisions of Section 766.314(4)(a), Florida Statutes.2 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 that David suffered a "birth- related neurological injury" and, since obstetrical services were provided by a "participating physician" at birth, proposes to accept the claim as compensable under the Plan. NICA's conclusion is grossly consistent with the proof and, consequently, its proposal to accept the claim as compensable is approved. Notice of Plan participation While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners have responded to the healthcare providers' claim of Plan immunity by contending that the hospital and the attending physician3 failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. Consequently, it is necessary to resolve whether, as alleged by the healthcare providers, appropriate notice was given. O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, supra. As a prelude to resolving the notice issue, it is noted that Mrs. Britt received her prenatal and intrapartum care at the Genesis Clinic (an obstetric and gynecologic health care facility) and Tampa General Hospital (TGH), facilities owned and operated by the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority. Pertinent to this case, the proof demonstrates that TGH manages the clinic, and provides the necessary nursing and clerical workers; however, prenatal care and intrapartum care are provided, pursuant to an "affiliation agreement," by physicians (faculty and resident) associated with the University of South Florida, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, who are employed by the Florida Board of Regents. Regarding her prenatal care, the proof demonstrates that Mrs. Britt's initial visit to the Genesis Clinic occurred on March 26, 1997.4 Typically, such a visit would include registration, financial consultation, a tour and orientation, and prenatal lab work. Here, as would be expected, Mrs. Britt initially presented to the front desk where she registered (signed in) and provided certain basic information about herself to complete a patient profile. Following completion of the patient profile, Mrs. Britt presented to the financial counselor, whose office was adjacent to the front desk and faced the patient waiting area. During the course of that meeting, the proof demonstrates that the financial counselor (Norma Kringel, currently known as Norma Kringel Tooley) reviewed Mrs. Britt's patient profile and, apparently satisfied that Mrs. Britt was Medicaid eligible, provided her with a packet (a plastic bag) containing various samples and child care information, as well as a Genesis Social Assessment form to complete. Following completion of that form, the financial consultant provided Mrs. Britt with a brochure prepared by NICA titled "Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem," which contained a concise explanation of the patient's rights and limitations under the Plan. Notably, the brochure included the following language: You are eligible for this protection if your doctor is a participating physician in the Association. Membership 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. Notwithstanding, while the consultant encouraged Mrs. Britt to read the brochure, she did not identify the physicians who would be providing Mrs. Britt's obstetrical care or advise her (as she easily could have) that the physicians who would be providing such care were participants in the Plan.5 The next step in the process presents the most problematic issues with regard to notice. According to the proof, at the conclusion of her meeting with the financial consultant, a new patient, such as Mrs. Britt, was directed to the patient waiting area, where she was to await the health education coordinator (Patricia Ogden, R.N.) for an orientation tour of the facility and classroom presentation. According to Nurse Ogden, it was her established procedure to collect the new patients in the waiting area, and then proceed with a tour of the facility, explaining the various services that were available, followed by a classroom session. During the course of the tour, it was Nurse Ogden's practice to explain to the patients that TGH provides prenatal care at the clinic in "affiliation" with the University of South Florida, College of Medicine, and that the physicians who would be providing obstetrical care were residents (M.D.s) now specializing in obstetrics and gynecology and that their services were under the direct supervision of an attending faculty physician. During the classroom session, it was Nurse Ogden's practice to, inter alia, hold up the "Peace of Mind" brochure to ensure that each new patient had one, explain that the affiliated group of physicians from the University of South Florida who would be providing their obstetric care were participants in the Plan, and advise the patients that if they had any questions regarding the Plan they should consult with their physicians. Following the classroom session, the new patients would then proceed to the final stage of their initial visit, prenatal lab work. From the routine practice established by the clinic for an initial visit by new patients, Intervenors suggest it is reasonable to infer that Mrs. Britt participated in the tour and classroom session, and was therefore informed as to the identity of her physicians (as a group) and that they were participants in the Plan. As additional proof that Mrs. Britt participated in the tour and classroom session, Intervenors point to the Progress Notes of Mrs. Britt's initial visit of March 26, 1997, which contains a check mark next to an item titled "Orientation tour and class session attended by patient," signed by Nurse Ogden. Notably, however, Nurse Ogden took no roll call or otherwise identified the patients who accompanied her on the tour or participated in the classroom session, and executed the Progress Notes confirming a patient's attendance on the tour and at the classroom session based solely on a list of new patients who had registered (signed in) at the reception desk that day. Consequently, the Progress Notes provide no independent or compelling proof, distinguishable from that which might be inferred from the clinic's routine practice, that Mrs. Britt attended the orientation tour and class session on March 26, 1997. Contrasted with the conclusion Intervenors would suggest be drawn from the Clinic's routine procedure for new patients, Mrs. Britt testified that she did not participate in an orientation tour and class session, and was never informed that the physicians who would provide her obstetrical care were participants in the Plan.6 As independent evidence that she did not follow the routine established for new patients, Petitioners point to the clinic's records, which reveal that she did not, as would be routine, present for prenatal lab work on March 26, 1997, but returned to the clinic on March 27, 1997, for that lab work. Given the proof, it cannot be resolved with any degree of confidence that, more likely than not, Mrs. Britt attended the orientation tour and classroom session. Consequently, since the tour and classroom session was the only occasion (apparent from the record) that patients were advised that their physicians were participants in the Plan, it must be resolved that the proof fails to support the conclusion that Mrs. Britt was ever provided notice that her physicians were participants in the Plan. While the proof failed to demonstrate that Mrs. Britt received notice on behalf of the participating physicians, it did demonstrate that TGH provided timely pre-delivery notice to Mrs. Britt, as envisioned by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. In this regard, the proof demonstrated that on October 19, 1997, during the course of pre-registration at TGH, Mrs. Britt was again given a copy of the brochure (prepared by NICA) titled "Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem," which, as previously noted, contained a concise explanation of the patients' rights and limitations under the Plan.
The Issue Whether birth-related neurological injuries which result in death during the neonatal period2 are covered by the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan) and, if so, whether Nicholas Erwin Schur, a deceased minor, otherwise qualifies for coverage under the Plan. Whether the notice requirements of the Plan were satisfied. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve or, alternatively, must preliminarily resolve, whether there is "clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or malicious purpose or willful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property" before a claimant may elect (under the provisions of Section 766.303(2), Florida Statutes) to reject Plan coverage and pursue such a civil suit. What effect, if any, the claimants' settlement with the birthing hospital has on the availability of benefits under the Plan. Whether the participating physician's corporate employers have standing to participate in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Nicholas J. Schur and Lisa Schur, are the parents and natural guardians of Nicholas Erwin Schur (Nicholas), a deceased minor, and co-personal representatives of their deceased son's estate. Nicholas was born September 20, 1998, at Baptist Medical Center of the Beaches, Inc. (Baptist Medical Center), a hospital located in Jacksonville Beach, Duval County, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. Nicholas died on September 24, 1998, during the neonatal period at Baptist Medical Center.4 The physician providing obstetrical services during Nicholas' birth was Marijane Q. Boyd, M.D., who was at all times material hereto a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes. 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 Nicholas suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as defined by the Plan. Consequently, since obstetrical services were provided by a "participating physician" at birth, NICA is of the view that, under the provisions of the Plan, the claim is compensable. NICA's conclusion is grossly consistent with the proof and is, therefore, approved.5 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. Marijane Boyd) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. As for Baptist Medical Center, the parties have stipulated that it provided timely pre-delivery notice as envisioned by the Plan. Consequently, it is only necessary to resolve whether, as alleged by the health care providers, the notice provisions of the Plan were satisfied by or on behalf of Dr. Boyd. 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., 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1473a (Fla. 3d DCA June 13, 2001). Pertinent to the notice issue, the proof demonstrates that on or about January 27, 1998, Mrs. Schur sought prenatal care from her existing provider, Cleveland W. Randolph, Jr., M.D., a physician who, together with Samuel A. Christian, M.D., maintained an office for the practice of obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) known as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division I, at 1375 Roberts Drive, Suite 205, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. At the time, Drs. Randolph and Christian, like approximately 40 other obstetricians practicing in the Jacksonville area, were employees/shareholders of North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A. Notably, all obstetricians employed by North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., were "participating physicians" in the Plan. Consistent with that relationship, Mrs. Schur was offered and accepted a "Contract for Obstetrical Services" (on January 27, 1998) which identified North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., as the entity through which Dr. Randolph would be providing obstetrical and post partum care. That agreement provided, inter alia, as follows: North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., provides total obstetrical and post partum care. This includes a physical examination and prenatal care, delivery of the infant and post partum care. Prenatal care includes all office visits and routine lab evaluation related to the pregnancy. Post partum care includes care for problems relating to the pregnancy or delivery and routine examinations, following the delivery up to 12 weeks. North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., agrees to provide availability of a licensed obstetrician on call 24 hours a day in case of emergency. The agreement further established a fee schedule for basic comprehensive obstetrical care, cesarean section, and other obstetrical services. On March 15, 1998, Dr. Randolph notified Mrs. Schur, as well as his other obstetrical patients, that he would no longer deliver babies, and that his "partner, Dr. Sam Christian," would provide that service. Thereafter, on March 23, 1998, Mrs. Schur had a prenatal visit with Dr. Christian (to decide whether she would accept him as her obstetrician) and decided not to continue her care with Dr. Christian (due to his increased patient load). Effective May 19, 1998, Mrs. Schur elected to transfer her obstetrical and post partum care to the offices of Drs. Rebecca Moorhead, Patricia Schroeder, and Marijane Q. Boyd, another small group practice affiliated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A. That office, known as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II, was located in a professional office building adjacent to the building occupied by Doctors Randolph and Christian. While the group practice of Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd was affiliated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A. (North Florida), and they held themselves out to the public as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II, as discussed more fully infra, the principles structured their business relationship through two separate professional associations. Regarding those associations, the proof demonstrated that Doctors Moorhead and Schroeder were employees of North Florida and Dr. Boyd was an employee (the sole employee) of Beaches Obstetrical and Gynecological Practice, Inc. (Beaches OB/GYN).6 Under the terms of a Management Services Agreement, effective August 1, 1997, North Florida (Drs. Moorhead and Schroeder/Beaches-Division II) and Beaches OB/GYN (Dr. Boyd) outlined the manner in which the group practice of Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd would be conducted, as well as how expenses and revenues would be shared. As structured, North Florida agreed to provide billing, administrative and other support services for Beaches OB/GYN (Dr. Boyd) and Beaches OB/GYN agreed that Dr. Boyd would provide her professional services. As compensation for North Florida's services, Beaches OB/GYN agreed to pay what was essentially one-third of the direct operating expenses incurred by North Florida in the operation of the group practice. As for revenue sharing, the agreement contemplated that North Florida and Beaches OB/GYN would receive a share of professional fees received based on the actual professional services provided by North Florida physicians (Drs. Moorhead and Schroeder) and Beaches OB/GYN's provider (Dr. Boyd). While Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd elected to structure their group practice through two professional associations, they otherwise did business as, and held themselves out to the public as, North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II. Notably, the signage on the front door so identified their practice, followed by the names of Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd; and, all paperwork of note likewise identified their practice as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II. Indeed, Mrs. Schur was, at the time, unaware of any entity known as Beaches Obstetrical and Gynecological Practice, Inc.7 Finally, with regard to the manner in which the group practiced, the proof demonstrated that Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd, like many group practices, shared patients, with each patient (including Mrs. Schur) rotating her prenatal care through all three physicians, and shared calls, with each physician on call every third day and every third weekend. With such an arrangement, it was strictly a matter of chance which of the physicians (Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, or Boyd), all of whom were participating physicians in the Plan, would deliver a patient's child. Regarding the notice issue, it is resolved that Mrs. Schur was provided timely notice that the physicians associated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., were participating physicians in the Plan, together with notice as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries provided by the Plan. Such conclusion is based on the more credible proof which demonstrates that on June 15, 1998, when Mrs. Schur presented to the offices of Drs. Moorhead, Schoder, and Boyd, that they had an established routine whereby on a patient's first office visit she would be provided the notice contemplated by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. Here, consistent with that routine, the proof demonstrates that on such date, when she presented for her first office visit, Mrs. Schur was given a form titled NOTICE TO OBSTETRIC PATIENT, which provided: I have been furnished information by North Florida Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A. prepared by the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, and have been advised that North Florida Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A. is a participating practice 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 , 19 . Signature (NAME OF PATIENT) Social Security No.: Attest: (Nurse or Physician) Date: Rather than sign the form, Mrs. Schur wrote across it the words "received at Dr. Randolph's." At hearing, Mrs. Schur testified that, although she does not recall the incident, the best explanation she could offer for writing "received at Dr. Randolph's" instead of signing the form was that "someone would have had to tell me to do that . . . [since] I would not have known to write that on there." Such explanation is logical and credible; however, having accepted the explanation for why the entry was made, instead of signing the form, does not detract from the strong inference to be drawn from the entry. Indeed, having written the words "received at Dr. Randolph's" across the form is compelling evidence that, at the time, Mrs. Schur had a clear recollection that, during the period she was under the care of Dr. Randolph, she received notice that the physicians associated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., were participating physicians in the Plan, as well as a copy of the NICA brochure that described the NICA program.8 As further evidence that notice was given, it is observed that established routine at the offices of Drs. Moorhead, Schoder, and Boyd also mandated that when notice was given an item titled "NICA ", and contained within a checklist (titled Plans/Education) on a patient's prenatal record, receive a "?" in the space following the acronym NICA. Notably, at or about the same time Mrs. Schur wrote across the notice "received at Dr. Randolph's" the space following the acronym NICA was annotated to read "? c Dr. Randolph." Given Mrs. Schur's entry on the notice form ("received at Dr. Randolph's"), as well as the established routine, it is reasonable to conclude that such annotation was intended to reflect that Mrs. Schur had received NICA notice when she was a patient of Dr. Randolph.9 While the proof demonstrated that Mrs. Schur received notice, as contemplated by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, that the physicians associated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, Inc., were participants in the Plan, it likewise demonstrated that no separate notice was provided that Dr. Boyd, either individually or as an employee of Beaches Obstetrical & Gynecological Practice, Inc., was a participant in the Plan. However, for reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, such failure was harmless. The settlement agreement with Baptist Medical Center On June 20, 2001, Nicholas J. Schur and Lisa S. Schur, individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Nicholas Erwin Schur (Claimants) and Baptist Medical Center of the Beaches, Inc., formally resolved all claims or potential claims of the Claimants against Baptist Medical Center and North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., including those matters relating to the pending civil action in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, Case No. 00-01458-CA, Division CV- C; however, the Claimants reserved all claims they had against Marijane Q. Boyd and Beaches Obstetrical and Gynecological Practice, Inc. As consideration for that settlement, the Claimants received the sum of $87,500 and the release and discharge of all claims Baptist Medical Center had against the Claimants arising from the care provided to Nicholas or Mrs. Schur.
The Issue At issue is whether interest should be assessed on an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
