|
ROMINGER
LEGAL
|
||||||||||
|
Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions -
Florida Law
|
||||||||||
| Need Legal Help? | ||||||||||
|
NOT FINDING
WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This
court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site
for more cases - CLICK HERE |
|
|
Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ANTHONY K. STEPHENS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE M O T I O N F O R R E H E A R I N G A N D Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D01-1099 BAY MEDICAL CENTER, GULF PINES HOSPITAL, INC., DAVID WEBB, M.D., FREDERICK B. E P S T E I N , M . D . , K E V I N M O R R I S S E Y , M . D . , B A Y E M E R G E N C Y P H Y S I C I A N SPECIALISTS, INC., AND JOHN DOE, Appellees. ______________________________/ Opinion filed March 10, 2003. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Michael C. Overstreet, Judge. Paul D. Mark Lucas, Esquire of Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney, Lewis, McManus & Sparando, Stuart, and Thomas J. Brown, Esquire and Hubert R. Brown, Esquire of Brown and Brown Attorneys at Law, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Harvey L. Jay, III, Esquire and Brett Q. Lucas, Esquire of Saalfield, Coulson, Shad & Jay, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees, Frederick Epstein, M.D. and Bay Emergency Physician Specialists, Inc. BENTON, J. After the plaintiff had rested, the defense renewed its motion for summary dismissal on grounds of fraud, alleging that the plaintiff had lied under oath. The trial court, which had denied the original motion before the trial began, initially took the renewed motion under advisement, and the case went to the jury, which returned a verdict for the defendants. Then, rather than enter judgment on the verdict, the trial court entered judgment solely "PURSUANT to the Court's Order dismissing Plaintiff's case for fraud upon the Court." The trial court ruled that the plaintiff's "conscious scheme . . . to enhance the value of his case by misrepresenting his physical limitations under oath" constituted a fraud on the court. It reached this conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial, and at the earlier hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss for fraud. The court denied plaintiff's repeated requests for a new, separate evidentiary hearing. The failure to allow plaintiff an opportunity to present additional evidence was error. See Furst v. Blackman, 744 So. 2d 1222, 1224-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand the trial court may simply enter judgment on the verdict. If the trial court concludes sanctions are appropriate, the parties are entitled to put on additional evidence, after proper notice, prior to sanctions being imposed. In the event of such an evidentiary hearing, 2 the trial court may consider all matters of record along with any evidence adduced at the additional hearing. Reversed and remanded. ALLEN, C.J., and HAWKES, J., CONCUR. 3
|
|
|
NOW - CASE
LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try
it for FREE
We
now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!
Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board
TERMS
OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES
Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2009.
A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.
