Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Dumigan (Summary)

PRODUCTS LIABILITY – NEGLIGENCE STANDARDS

Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Dumigan, No. 5D14-505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2014)

The Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a hospital seeking review of an adverse decision in a negligence lawsuit. At issue on appeal was whether a patient’s negligence lawsuit should be characterized as a medical malpractice claim or as a products liability claim.

The lawsuit was filed by a patient who had been admitted to the hospital for cardiac bypass surgery. During the course of the surgery, he had received contaminated heparin, which caused him to develop a severe bacterial infection. This infection was so extensive that it eventually led to the amputation of his left leg and his right foot. In his complaint, the patient explained that the heparin supplier had issued a notice of recall prior to the surgery, but that the hospital had failed to implement adequate procedures to respond to the recall.

At trial, the hospital argued that this was a medical malpractice case subject to the Florida Medical Malpractice Act (“FMMA”). The FMMA requires plaintiffs to address a higher, medical negligence standard of care in their lawsuits. Because the patient had not done this, the hospital argued that his claim should be dismissed. The trial court disagreed with the hospital’s argument, concluding that the patient was actually alleging a product liability suit, rather than medical malpractice, which carried a lesser, ordinary negligence standard.

The appellate court agreed, holding that the allegedly wrongful act was the hospital’s failure to remove contaminated heparin from its supplies, not the medical decision to administer a blood thinner. Because this involved an administrative policy rather than a medical judgment, it was properly classified as a products liability case and was not subject to the heightened medical negligence standard. Consequently, the trial court had acted properly in denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss.