LEGAL ROUNDUP – Florida
Duty Owed to Substance Abuse and Suicidal Patients: New Court Ruling Lays Out a Duty Providers Have to a Patient Prior to Discharge Related to Treatments After Discharge
Robert C. Burley, Personal Representative for the Estate of Anthony Burley v. The Village South, Inc., 407 So.3d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
The Third District Court of Appeal recently reversed an order granting summary judgment in favor of an addiction treatment facility, holding the facility did not have a duty to prevent the decedent’s suicide after discharge but it did have a duty to attempt to assist the patient in securing more appropriate services in a setting more responsive to the patient’s needs.
Anthony Burley had been involuntarily committed to The Village South, Inc., an addiction facility, following his third overdose and initiation of a Marchman Act. Upon his admission, Mr. Burley tested negative for controlled substances. Ten days later, he tested positive for cocaine, a violation of the facility’s rules. Thirteen days later, he was formally discharged from the facility to a homeless shelter with a two-week supply of Suboxone and a list of doctors to contact for medication maintenance.
Forty-eight days later, Mr. Burley overdosed and died of acute combined drug toxicity. His estate filed a lawsuit for medical negligence, alleging that The Village South negligently provided substance abuse care and treatment to Mr. Burley and failed to provide him with an adequate discharge from the facility.
The Third District Court of Appeal determined that The Village South had a duty arising from Florida Statute 397.6751, which states that when an involuntary patient’s behavior necessitates discharge from a facility, the facility’s provider must discharge the individual and attempt to assist the individual in securing more appropriate services in a setting more responsive to that individual’s needs.
In addition, the Third District Court of Appeal determined that The Village South had a duty arising from the general facts of the case as it created a “foreseeable zone of risk” when it provided Mr. Burley with Suboxone, but no follow-up medical appointment, and referred him to a homeless shelter rather than a rehabilitation center.
The court made it clear that The Village South did not have a duty to prevent the suicide from occurring, nor did it have a duty to follow up with Mr. Burley after his discharge to ensure he went to a doctor or sought further substance abuse treatments.
Although this matter was related to an involuntary substance abuse patient, the same ruling could apply to a voluntary substance abuse patient or even a suicidal patient being discharged from the hospital. This ruling means that providers should no longer recommend a follow-up timeframe but, rather, schedule the follow-up appointment, ensure the patient is aware of the appointment having been made, and ensure the patient has a way to get to the appointment, all before the patient is discharged.
Claims for a Hospital’s Negligent Credentialing Must Be Addressed with Sufficient Facts in a Corroborating Expert Affidavit During the Presuit Investigation Period
Angel Tomas v. Dmitry Sandler, DPM, et. al., 406 So.3d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
The Third District Court of Appeal recently affirmed a motion to dismiss related to a negligent credentialing claim on the basis that the presuit corroborating expert affidavit was deficient.
The plaintiff sustained a left ankle fracture and was referred to a board-certified foot and ankle surgeon, Dimitry Sandler, DPM, who recommended undergoing a total ankle replacement surgery. The surgery was performed at Mariners Hospital, Inc. Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced loss of ankle function, wound dehiscence, osteomyelitis and chronic infections.
The plaintiff served a notice of intent on Dr. Sandler and Mariners Hospital. Included with the notice of intent was the corroborating expert affidavit by a board-certified foot and ankle surgeon, Matthew Sorenson, DPM. Dr. Sorenson’s opinions related to Dr. Sandler’s negligence were listed in the affidavit. In addition, Dr. Sorenson opined that:
Mariners Hospital, Inc. fell below applicable standards of care for credentialing surgeons in credentialing and authorizing Dr. Sandler to perform a total ankle replacement procedure. It is therefore my opinion within reasonable medical probability that Mariners Hospital, Inc. fell below applicable standards of care in their supervision and credentialing of Dr. Sandler and was therefore negligent, and that this negligence resulted in injury to Mr. Tomas as summarized above.
A corroborating expert affidavit must sufficiently indicate the manner in which the defendant allegedly deviated from the standard of care and must provide adequate information for the defendant to evaluate the merits of the claim. In addition, Florida Statute 766.102(7) provides the requirements for expert witnesses testifying on the standard of care as to a hospital, health care facility or medical facility. An expert who provides opinions based on the standard of care as to administrative and other non-clinical issues must have substantial knowledge, through training and experience, concerning the standard of care for the type of facility the expert is providing opinions on.
The Third District Court of Appeal determined that the corroborating expert affidavit was devoid of detail as to the administrative standard of care relating to credentialing. The court affirmed the finding that the affidavit was deficient, stating, “To conclude otherwise would allow every plaintiff to automatically transform any individual medical malpractice claim against a physician with credentials or privileges into an administrative claim without complying with the safeguards of section 766.102(7).”
Defendants should analyze any counts related to agency theories to determine if any administrative or non-clinical issues have been alleged or insinuated (i.e., negligent credentialing, negligent hiring, etc.). A plaintiff can still allege vicarious liability related to the medical negligence. However, any additional administrative claims will need to have been addressed in the corroborating expert affidavit by a qualified expert. If they were not, a motion to dismiss for failure to presuit should be filed.
The Quarterly Dose – August 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.