Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan examines the complex world of medical malpractice and punitive damages. The court delved into the process by which punitive damages may be argued. This case may create more risk of Nuclear Verdicts® for healthcare organizations.

Orlando Health, Inc. appealed the trial court ruling granting appellees motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert punitive damages.[i] Orlando argued the trial court erred in granting the motion because the record did not reflect whether staff or any managing agents of Orlando engaged in intentional conduct or gross negligence, nor was there enough supporting evidence to support a claim of vicarious liability. Lastly, Orlando asserted that the appellees did not include relevant proffer experts. Therefore, Orlando sought to reverse the trial court’s order.[ii]

The allegations in the appellees’ complaint stemmed from the alleged medical malpractice of Dr. Karl M. Hagen. Dr. Hagen has faced prior medical malpractice allegations.[iii] In the Orlando Health Inc. case, Dr. Hagen was accused of negligently performing an appendectomy procedure on Mohan. The procedure was to remove Mr. Mohan’s inflamed appendix.[iv] However, Dr. Hagen removed Mr. Mohan’s healthy right ureter instead. The inflamed appendix was left behind. Three medical procedures were required to remedy the medical mistake, including removing the inflamed appendix, a nephrostomy tube, and bladder reconstruction surgery. [v]

The complaint also alleges Dr. Hagen’s medical history included malpractice lawsuits, prosecution, and incidences of reprimanding due to Dr. Hagen’s conduct and propensity to engage in alcohol consumption while on call. It is alleged Orlando ignored Dr. Hagen’s conduct while granting staff privileges to him without restriction. Appellees alleged the fact that the failure to place restrictions or oversight into Dr. Hagen’s employment endangered patients and resulted in serious injuries and death of numerous patients. Appellees alleged the actions by Orlando facilitated the conditions that led to the wrong-site surgery performed on Mr. Mohan. Dr. Hagen’s conduct during surgeries dubbed him the name “Speedy Hagen” by his peers due to Dr. Hagen’s habit of speeding through surgical procedures.

To assert punitive damages in a medical malpractice case in Florida, the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant is personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. The evidence must be shown in the record or proffered.[vi] In this matter, the appellees filed their First Amended Punitive Damage Argument outline, which included proffer experts.[vii] The proffer included deposition testimony of Dr. Hagen, minutes from the executive committee’s meetings regarding Dr. Hagen’s resignation, and the decision to revoke his privileges. Lastly, deposition testimony was taken from an Orlando CEO Longacre, who agreed she was responsible for preparing credentialing information.[viii] Appellees argued they presented enough evidence to assert punitive damages against Orlando. Orlando argued there was not sufficient evidence of intentional misconduct or gross negligence to support a claim for punitive damages.

The court found there was sufficient evidence to justify the punitive damage claim that Orlando is liable for the surgeon’s hiring and retention. Orlando had a duty to exercise reasonable care when hiring and retaining medical professionals and to ensure their continuous training and competence. [ix]

Key Takeaways

This ruling has significant implications for future suits involving healthcare organizations. Plaintiffs may seek punitive damages from hospitals, hospital networks, and healthcare providers that demonstrate gross negligence or intentional misconduct. This should encourage hospitals to implement rigorous hiring screenings, training protocols, and guidelines related to instances of misconduct.

Keep Reading

New Florida Discovery Rules Are Hot off the Press! What You Need to Know (and Do) Now Audish v. Macias Builds Upon the Foundation Started in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provision, Inc. By Affirming the Admissibility of Medicare... My New Year’s Resolutions at Work Barking Up the Wrong Policy California Civil Procedure Code Section 998 – a Means to An End May or Must: California and the Ninth Circuit Applies Grammar Rules for FMLA Par For the Course Shining Light on Phantom Medical Bills–Lessons from Washington on Using Federal Hospital Price Transparency Rules to... When Roads Diverge in the Wood: the Power of Risk in Building a Fulfilling Career and Stopping Nuclear Verdicts®

Sources

[i] Orlando Health Inc., f/k/a Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., Appellant, v. Mark R. MOHAN, Rohini Budhu, South Lake Hospital, Inc., Jorge L. Florin, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Mid-Florida Surgical Associates, and Karl M. Hagen, M.D., Appellees, No. 5D2023-1596 (1^st DCA June 18, 2024).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Orlando Sentinel, Board Punishes Doctors for Errors (August 4, 2021), https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2007/10/09/board-punishes-doctors-for-errors-2/?clearUserState=true.

[iv] Orlando Health Inc., No. 5D2023-1596 (1^st DCA June 18, 2024).

[v] Id.

[vi] § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2023)

[vii] Opinion, Orlando Health Inc., f/k/a Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc., Appellant, v. Mark R. MOHAN, Rohini Budhu, South Lake Hospital, Inc., Jorge L. Florin, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Mid-Florida Surgical Associates, and Karl M. Hagen, M.D., Appellees, No. 5D2023-1596 (1^st DCA June 18, 2024).

[viii] Id.

[ix] Orlando Health Inc., No. 5D2023-1596 (1^st DCA June 18, 2024).