Hernandez v. Crespo — Dec. 2016 (Summary)

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

Hernandez v. Crespo
No. SC15-67 (Fla. Dec. 22, 2016)

The Supreme Court of Florida remanded a case to the court of appeal, concluding that a medical malpractice arbitration agreement between a patient and a health clinic was void as against public policy because it excluded required provisions of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act.  While 39 weeks pregnant and having contractions, the patient was turned away from her appointment at the health clinic because she arrived a few minutes late.  Three days later, and before her rescheduled appointment, the patient delivered her child stillborn.  After the patient notified the clinic of her intent to sue, the clinic sought to compel binding arbitration based on a signed agreement between the patient and the health care clinic.

The court approved the district court’s finding that the arbitration agreement between the patient and the clinic was against public policy because the agreement changed the “cost, award, and fairness incentives” of the state’s Medical Malpractice Act, which contains statutory requirements for arbitration of medical malpractice actions.  The court found that the arbitration agreement contravened the Act by, among other things, failing to have the clinic assume the majority of the costs of arbitration and failing to require the clinic to pay interest on damages.