Preview
Filing # 125143655 E-Filed 04/19/2021 10:54:55 AM
IN THE CIRUCUIT COURT
OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
BRENDA SNOW, CASE NO. 01 2020-CA-001350
Plaintiffs,
v.
SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL
AND CLINICS, INC. d/b/a UF
HEALTH SHANDS HOSPITAL, A
Florida Non-Profit Corporation and
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD
OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH
EYE CENTER a Florida Public Body
Corporate,
Defendants,
DEFENDANT SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC,
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Defendant SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC.,
(Shands), by and through its undersigned attorneys, in in response to Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, served August 17, 2020 and was the subject of Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissing
Claim Regarding Violations of Florida Statute §766.110 Contained Within Counts III and VII of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and was the subject of Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Dismissing
Claim Regarding Violations of Florida Statute §766.110 Contained Within Counts III and VII of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and would state as follows:
1. Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same.
"2020 CA 001350" 125143655 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 04/19/2021 10:55:00 AM EDT. Defendant admits that Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. ts a Florida Not-
For-Profit Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and doing
business in Alachua County, Florida. Defendant is without knowledge of the
allegations of what was on a website on or before August 17, 2020 as the website
noted in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was last updated on April 17,
2021, and therefore denies the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, as revised.
. Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same.
. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as
revised.
. Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same.
. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as
revised, and therefore denies same.
. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint,
as revised.
. Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same.
. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was a patient at Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics
Inc. and otherwise is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraphs 11 - 24 of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same.10.
11.
12.
13,
14,
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
As to Paragraphs 25, 28 and 35 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised,
Defendant realleges its responses herein.
At to Paragraphs 26 — 27, 29 - 34 and 36 — 46, these Counts and Paragraphs do not
involve this Defendant and thus no response is necessary. If any response is deemed
necessary, Defendant denies these paragraphs, with the caveat that in Plaintiff's
revisions of her Amended Complaint, she has withdrawn Paragraph 40.
As to Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant
realleges its prior responses to this paragraph.
Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 48 -- 52 of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, as revised.
As to Paragraph 53 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant
realleges its prior responses to this paragraph.
Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 54 — 60 of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, as revised.
As to Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant
realleges its prior responses to this paragraph.
Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 62 --71 of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, as revised.
As to Paragraph 72 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant
realleges its prior responses to this paragraph.
Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 73 — 77 and 80 - 83 of Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, as revised, with the caveat that in Plaintiff's revisions of her
Amended Complaint, she has withdrawn Paragraphs 78 and 79.20. As to Plaintiff's unnumbered Paragraph on Page 29 of her Amended Complaint, as
revised, with a title of “Compliance with Florida Statute §766.106 and §766.28” and a
paragraph with a title of “Certificate of Service”, Defendant is without knowledge of
the allegations of these paragraphs and therefore denies same.
Affirmative Defenses
21, Pursuant to §1004.41(4)(e), Fla. Stat., Defendant is a corporation primarily acting as
an instrumentality of the State of Florida and is entitled to the benefits and limitations
of Section 768.28, Fla. Stat.
22. Plaintiff was negligent and her negligence was either the sole cause or a significant
contributing cause of any and all damages and injuries and any and all damages
awarded should be reduced in relation to her negligence.
23. Defendant is entitled to set-off of collateral sources of indemnity pursuant to Section
768.76, Fla, Stat.
24, The incident complained of in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, resulted
from the actions of other parties, and/or third parties, none of whom were under the
control, supervision or direction of this Defendant. Defendant reserves the right to
amend this affirmative defense to comply with Messmer/Fabre, (Messmer v Teachers
Insurance Co., 588 So.2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. den., 598 So.2d 77 (Fla.
1992); Fabre v Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993)) upon continuing discovery.
Defendant reserves the right, pursuant to Nash v Wells Fargo Services, Inc., 678
So.2d 1262, 1264 (Fla. 1996) to specifically identify any person or entity that
discovery discloses is or may be liable for part or all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffhas identified claims against co-defendant and Defendant will rely on any evidence
generated in this action against co-defendant.
25, The damages complained of in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, are the
result of an act of nature, an idiosyncratic reaction and not in any way related to any
alleged acts or omissions on the part of this Defendant.
26. Defendant is a teaching hospital as defined in §408.07, Fla. Stat. and is entitled to a
proration of responsibility, if any, as provided for in Section 768.81(5), Fla. Stat.
27. Defendant may be entitled to seek the application of Section 768.78, Fla. Stat., if
applicable.
28. Defendant is entitled to a set-off of any settlement reached with any person or entity
for claims arising from the allegations of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, as revised.
29. Defendant is entitled to the application of Section 768.13, Fla. Stat.
30. Plaintiff's claims for medical and hospital expenses are limited or barred to the extent
that any such expenses have been paid and accepted by any health care provider. See,
Goble v Frohman, 901 So.2d 830 (Fla. 2005), Alternatively, Plaintiff's claims for
expenses due to medical or hospital treatment are limited to the amount actually paid
and/or owed to any such health care provider.
31. Plaintiff's damages are subject to being apportioned by and between parties, non-
parties and pre-existing conditions.
32. Plaintiff's claims are the result of superseding and/or intervening causes and are not
the result of any action or inaction of Defendant.33. Plaintiff is required by Federal law to comply with the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010)
(“ACA”) and all future medical expenses should be limited by this law.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof was filed with the Florida
Courts E-Filing Portal and that a copy hereof has been furnished by electronic mail this _ AG te
day of ACBL, 2021 to Andrea A. Lewis, Esquire, Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart &
Shipley, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, attorney for Plaintiff,
searcylaw.com; mweschrek@searcylaw.com; Rafael E.
lewisteam@searcylaw.com; alewis
Martinez, Esquire, and Wilbert R. Vancol, Esquire, McEwan, Martinez, Dukes & Hall, P.A., 108
E. Central Blvd., Orlando, FL 32801, attorneys for University of Florida Board of Trustees,
rmartinez@mmdorl.com and wvancol@mmdorl.com; and Christine Davis, Carlton Fields, P.A.,
sdouglas@carltonfields.com.
/s/ Francis E, Pierce, WI.
Francis E. Pierce, III
Florida Bar No. 0270921
Mateer Harbert, P.A.
225 East Robinson St., Suite 600
Orlando, FL 32801
Ph, 407-425-9044
Facsimile 407-423-2016
litpleadings@mateerharbert.com
Attorneys for SHANDS
4841-6740-4006, v. 1
Preview
Filing # 125143655 E-Filed 04/19/2021 10:54:55 AM IN THE CIRUCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA BRENDA SNOW, CASE NO. 01 2020-CA-001350 Plaintiffs, v. SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. d/b/a UF HEALTH SHANDS HOSPITAL, A Florida Non-Profit Corporation and UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES d/b/a UF HEALTH EYE CENTER a Florida Public Body Corporate, Defendants, DEFENDANT SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC, ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Defendant SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC., (Shands), by and through its undersigned attorneys, in in response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, served August 17, 2020 and was the subject of Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissing Claim Regarding Violations of Florida Statute §766.110 Contained Within Counts III and VII of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and was the subject of Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Dismissing Claim Regarding Violations of Florida Statute §766.110 Contained Within Counts III and VII of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and would state as follows: 1. Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same. "2020 CA 001350" 125143655 Filed at Alachua County Clerk 04/19/2021 10:55:00 AM EDT. Defendant admits that Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. ts a Florida Not- For-Profit Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and doing business in Alachua County, Florida. Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of what was on a website on or before August 17, 2020 as the website noted in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was last updated on April 17, 2021, and therefore denies the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised. . Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same. . Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised. . Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same. . Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same. . Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised. . Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same. . Defendant admits that Plaintiff was a patient at Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics Inc. and otherwise is without knowledge of the allegations of Paragraphs 11 - 24 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, and therefore denies same.10. 11. 12. 13, 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. As to Paragraphs 25, 28 and 35 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant realleges its responses herein. At to Paragraphs 26 — 27, 29 - 34 and 36 — 46, these Counts and Paragraphs do not involve this Defendant and thus no response is necessary. If any response is deemed necessary, Defendant denies these paragraphs, with the caveat that in Plaintiff's revisions of her Amended Complaint, she has withdrawn Paragraph 40. As to Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant realleges its prior responses to this paragraph. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 48 -- 52 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised. As to Paragraph 53 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant realleges its prior responses to this paragraph. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 54 — 60 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised. As to Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant realleges its prior responses to this paragraph. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 62 --71 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised. As to Paragraph 72 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, Defendant realleges its prior responses to this paragraph. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraphs 73 — 77 and 80 - 83 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, with the caveat that in Plaintiff's revisions of her Amended Complaint, she has withdrawn Paragraphs 78 and 79.20. As to Plaintiff's unnumbered Paragraph on Page 29 of her Amended Complaint, as revised, with a title of “Compliance with Florida Statute §766.106 and §766.28” and a paragraph with a title of “Certificate of Service”, Defendant is without knowledge of the allegations of these paragraphs and therefore denies same. Affirmative Defenses 21, Pursuant to §1004.41(4)(e), Fla. Stat., Defendant is a corporation primarily acting as an instrumentality of the State of Florida and is entitled to the benefits and limitations of Section 768.28, Fla. Stat. 22. Plaintiff was negligent and her negligence was either the sole cause or a significant contributing cause of any and all damages and injuries and any and all damages awarded should be reduced in relation to her negligence. 23. Defendant is entitled to set-off of collateral sources of indemnity pursuant to Section 768.76, Fla, Stat. 24, The incident complained of in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, resulted from the actions of other parties, and/or third parties, none of whom were under the control, supervision or direction of this Defendant. Defendant reserves the right to amend this affirmative defense to comply with Messmer/Fabre, (Messmer v Teachers Insurance Co., 588 So.2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. den., 598 So.2d 77 (Fla. 1992); Fabre v Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993)) upon continuing discovery. Defendant reserves the right, pursuant to Nash v Wells Fargo Services, Inc., 678 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Fla. 1996) to specifically identify any person or entity that discovery discloses is or may be liable for part or all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffhas identified claims against co-defendant and Defendant will rely on any evidence generated in this action against co-defendant. 25, The damages complained of in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as revised, are the result of an act of nature, an idiosyncratic reaction and not in any way related to any alleged acts or omissions on the part of this Defendant. 26. Defendant is a teaching hospital as defined in §408.07, Fla. Stat. and is entitled to a proration of responsibility, if any, as provided for in Section 768.81(5), Fla. Stat. 27. Defendant may be entitled to seek the application of Section 768.78, Fla. Stat., if applicable. 28. Defendant is entitled to a set-off of any settlement reached with any person or entity for claims arising from the allegations of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, as revised. 29. Defendant is entitled to the application of Section 768.13, Fla. Stat. 30. Plaintiff's claims for medical and hospital expenses are limited or barred to the extent that any such expenses have been paid and accepted by any health care provider. See, Goble v Frohman, 901 So.2d 830 (Fla. 2005), Alternatively, Plaintiff's claims for expenses due to medical or hospital treatment are limited to the amount actually paid and/or owed to any such health care provider. 31. Plaintiff's damages are subject to being apportioned by and between parties, non- parties and pre-existing conditions. 32. Plaintiff's claims are the result of superseding and/or intervening causes and are not the result of any action or inaction of Defendant.33. Plaintiff is required by Federal law to comply with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010) (“ACA”) and all future medical expenses should be limited by this law. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereof was filed with the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and that a copy hereof has been furnished by electronic mail this _ AG te day of ACBL, 2021 to Andrea A. Lewis, Esquire, Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409, attorney for Plaintiff, searcylaw.com; mweschrek@searcylaw.com; Rafael E. lewisteam@searcylaw.com; alewis Martinez, Esquire, and Wilbert R. Vancol, Esquire, McEwan, Martinez, Dukes & Hall, P.A., 108 E. Central Blvd., Orlando, FL 32801, attorneys for University of Florida Board of Trustees, rmartinez@mmdorl.com and wvancol@mmdorl.com; and Christine Davis, Carlton Fields, P.A., sdouglas@carltonfields.com. /s/ Francis E, Pierce, WI. Francis E. Pierce, III Florida Bar No. 0270921 Mateer Harbert, P.A. 225 East Robinson St., Suite 600 Orlando, FL 32801 Ph, 407-425-9044 Facsimile 407-423-2016 litpleadings@mateerharbert.com Attorneys for SHANDS 4841-6740-4006, v. 1