Summary
holding that the notice must be given a "`reasonable time prior to delivery.'" (quoting Galen, 696 So.2d at 309)
Summary of this case from Weeks v. Birth-RelatedOpinion
Nos. 89,986 89,991
September 25, 1997
Two Cases Consolidated.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance First District — Case No. 95-229 (Leon County).
Stephen E. Day and Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie Burnett, Jacksonville, Florida; and Ronald L. Harrop of Gurney Handley, P.A., Orlando, Florida, for Petitioners.
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin Perwin, Miami, Florida; and Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, Florida, on behalf of Devin Athey; and Larry Sands of Sand, White Sands, P.A., Daytona Beach, Florida, on behalf of Wilson Broaden, for Respondents.
We have for review Board of Regents v. Athey, 694 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), wherein the First District Court of Appeal certified the same question of great public importance it certified in Braniff v. Galen of Florida, Inc., 669 So.2d 1951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995):
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?
694 So.2d at 50. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In Galen of Florida, Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1997), we answered the certified question by holding "that 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." 696 So.2d at 309. Accordingly, we answer the question certified here as we did in Galen and approve the decision under review to the extent it is consistent with that opinion.
We decline to reach the other issues raised by the petitioners.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., dissents.