Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Servs. v. Meeks

Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Servs. v. Meeks

Opinion

 [*323]  ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.

The Petitioners, Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc.; Vantage Health Care Corporation; and Petersen Healthcare, Inc., authorized to operate Cambridge Convalescent Center (Cambridge Convalescent Center), request certiorari review of a trial court order granting leave to amend the complaint of Rugenia A. Meeks, as personal representative of the Estate of Mary Meeks Young (the plaintiff), to include a claim for punitive damages. We have jurisdiction, but our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court adhered [**2]  to the procedural requirements associated with section 768.72, Florida Statutes (19%%99). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995). We deny the petition.

Mary Meeks Young allegedly was a resident at the Cambridge Convalescent Center from December 4, 1992, until her death on September 4, 1997. The plaintiff's complaint is not a wrongful death action, but rather a survival action for negligence. It alleges that the Cambridge Convalescent Center violated various rights enumerated in section 400.022, Florida Statutes (1997), and claims that Ms. Young suffered bedsores, infections, dehydration, malnourishment, and other injuries as a result of these violations.

In early October 1999, several months after the filing of the initial complaint, in October 1999, the plaintiff filed a bare bones motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The motion contains no factual basis to support the claim for punitive damages, but merely "contends that  [*324]  there exists a reasonable basis" for these damages. The plaintiff scheduled the motion for a 45 -minute hearing to take place on [**3]  November 9, 1999.

Cambridge Convalescent Center responded to the motion on October 6, 1999, by filing a request for production on October 6, 1999, of all information "which will be submitted to the Court" to substantiate the punitive damages claim. It also filed punitive damages interrogatories to determine this information. Finally, it filed an objection to the motion, arguing the plaintiff had not complied with the requirement of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(b) that a motion state with "particularity" the grounds for any requested order.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.