North Brevard County Hospital District D/B/A/ Parrish Medical Center v. Deligdish

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-3173

LT Case No. 2023-CA-012958

_____________________________

NORTH BREVARD COUNTY

HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a Parrish

Medical Center,

Petitioner,

v.

CRAIG K. DELIGDISH,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for

Brevard County.

Curt Jacobus, Judge.

Joseph I. Zumpano and Leon N. Patricios, of Zumpano Patricios,

P.A., Coral Gables, for Petitioner.

Adam M. Bird, of WhiteBird, PLLC, Melbourne, for Respondent.

December 20, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Respondent (“Doctor”) raised defamation claims against

Petitioner (“Hospital”), a government entity. The trial court denied

Hospital’s motion to dismiss. Hospital seeks certiorari relief,

asking that we quash the trial court’s order and remand with

instructions to dismiss Doctor’s complaint with prejudice. We

grant Hospital’s petition in part.

I.

Doctor is the president of a healthcare company. He was also

a volunteer faculty member at the University of Central Florida’s

College of Medicine (“UCF”). Doctor’s company and Hospital had a

business relationship that soured, precipitating multiple lawsuits.

Hospital’s chief executive officer (“CEO”) and outside legal

counsel (“Counsel”) each sent letters to UCF. They reported that

Doctor was using his “Associate Professor of Medicine” title in

correspondence that appeared unrelated to his role at UCF. In

these writings, such as those to elected officials, Doctor raised

concerns about Hospital. He referenced accusations previously

made by his company that Hospital broke certain laws. CEO and

Counsel suspected that Doctor was using his UCF title to bolster

his claims about Hospital. CEO and Counsel believed that UCF

would not want its name attached to Doctor’s writings because

readers might think that UCF endorsed his allegations.

Ultimately, UCF notified Hospital that it “instructed” Doctor

“to immediately discontinue all unauthorized uses of his UCF

volunteer/affiliated faculty title,” including “on emails he sends to

advance his personal practice or business” or which are otherwise

“outside of his specifically authorized UCF activities.” UCF

thanked Hospital for bringing the matter to its attention and

requested immediate notice if Hospital again discovered Doctor

using UCF’s name in unauthorized ways. After Hospital later

reported that Doctor used his UCF title in an email about Hospital

that he sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, UCF terminated

Doctor’s volunteer faculty appointment.

Doctor sued Hospital, alleging that Hospital’s “defamatory

campaign” caused him to lose his faculty appointment.* Hospital

* Doctor attached CEO and Counsel’s letters as exhibits to his

complaint, making them “a part thereof for all purposes.” See Fla.

R. Civ. P. 1.130(b); see also Fladell v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing

2

moved to dismiss Doctor’s complaint with prejudice on several

grounds, including absolute immunity. The trial court denied

Hospital’s motion. In the instant petition, Hospital challenges the

court’s order only with respect to absolute immunity. Hospital

raises none of the other grounds from its motion to dismiss.

II.

A.

Certiorari “allows an appellate court ‘to reach down and halt

a miscarriage of justice where no other remedy exists.’” Scott v.

Scott, 375 So. 3d 331, 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (quoting Univ. of

Fla. Bd. of Trs. v. Carmody, 372 So. 3d 246, 252 (Fla. 2023)). It is

warranted only when the lower court “depart[s] from the essential

requirements of the law and cause[s] harm that cannot be

corrected on post-judgment appeal.” Id. (quoting Jordan v. State,

350 So. 3d 103, 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)). “‘In other words, before

certiorari can be used to review non-final orders, the appellate

court must focus on the threshold jurisdictional question,’ which is

whether the order causes irreparable harm.” Id. (quoting Citizens

Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, 104 So. 3d 344, 351 (Fla.

2012)).

“When the trial court denies a motion to dismiss on immunity

grounds, certiorari review . . . is proper because absolute immunity

protects a party from having to defend a lawsuit at all and waiting

until final appeal would render such immunity meaningless if the

lower court denied dismissal in error.” James v. Leigh, 145 So. 3d

1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also Bank of N.Y. Mellon v.

Abadia, 314 So. 3d 595, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (granting

certiorari relief and holding that a trial court’s errant denial of a

motion to dismiss, which had asserted litigation privilege,

“constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law”). Therefore, if

Hospital indeed has the absolute immunity that it claims, the trial

Bd., 772 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 2000) (“If an exhibit facially

negates the cause of action asserted, the document attached as an

exhibit controls and must be considered in determining a motion

to dismiss.”).

3

court’s rejection of that immunity qualifies as irreparable harm,

which activates our certiorari jurisdiction.

B.

We next consider whether the trial court’s ruling was a

departure from the law’s essential requirements. This occurs “only

when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle

of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Allstate Ins. Co. v.

Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003). “A classic example”

is when a trial court does not follow binding precedent. State Farm

Fla. Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 327 So. 3d 342, 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Binding precedent shows that absolute immunity is a common

law doctrine that the Legislature has not abrogated. See Quintero

v. Diaz, 300 So. 3d 288, 290–91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). It holds that

“[p]ublic officials who make statements within the scope of their

duties are absolutely immune from suit for defamation.” del Pino

Allen v. Santelises, 271 So. 3d 1112, 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)

(quoting Stephens v. Geoghegan, 702 So. 2d 517, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA

1997)). It “protects the statements of all public officials, regardless

of the branch of government or the level of the official.” Cameron

v. Jastremski, 246 So. 3d 385, 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting

Cassell v. India, 964 So. 2d 190, 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). And it

even applies to statements that are false or malicious, so long as

they occurred within the scope of a public employee’s duties. See

Quintero, 300 So. 3d at 290–91; Cassell, 964 So. 2d at 195;

Albritton v. Gandy, 531 So. 2d 381, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

C.

In his complaint, Doctor acknowledged that Hospital is a

government entity, and that CEO is a Hospital employee. Doctor

also alleged that Hospital communicated through CEO. In doing

so, Doctor implicitly conceded that CEO acted within the scope of

his duties when he authored his allegedly defamatory letter.

Indeed, any contrary view is untenable. “The scope of an

officer’s duties is to be liberally construed.” Cassell, 964 So. 2d at

194. It encompasses not only “those things required of the officer,”

but also “all matters which he is authorized to perform.” Id.; see

4

also Stephens, 702 So. 2d at 523 (observing that it “includes

discretionary duties that are associated with a given position”).

Here, CEO aimed to verify whether Doctor’s statements about

Hospital truly carried UCF’s imprimatur and, assuming they did

not, encourage UCF to take corrective action. These efforts to

protect Hospital’s reputation fall comfortably within the “liberally

construed” scope of CEO’s duties as Hospital’s senior executive.

The law is also clear that when a government employee makes

statements within the scope of his duties—as CEO did here—

absolute immunity extends to the agency that he serves. See Palm

Beach Cnty. Health Care Dist. v. Prof’l Med. Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d

1090, 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“Davis was acting within the orbit

of his duties and responsibilities when he wrote the February 23,

2000 letter. Because the liability of the [public hospital] District on

the defamation count is predicated on its status as Davis’s

employer, the absolute immunity of Davis ‘necessarily requires the

exoneration’ of the District.” (quoting Saxon v. Knowles, 185 So. 2d

194, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966))); Medina v. City of Hialeah, No. 02–

20957–CIV, 2003 WL 1562281, *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2003)

(“[Plaintiff] claims, however, that his claims are being brought

against the City and not against the representatives of the City.

This distinction is artificial. If a city official has absolute immunity

against claims for defamation, then the city cannot be liable for

defamation where the liability against the City is premised on

respondeat superior.”). For these reasons, Hospital has absolute

immunity with respect to CEO’s statements.

D.

It is a different story for Counsel’s statements. Unlike CEO,

Counsel—an attorney in private practice—is not a government

employee. This places him beyond the established limits of the

absolute immunity doctrine.

According to our Supreme Court, “[t]he public interest

requires that statements made by officials of all branches of

government in connection with their official duties be

absolutely privileged.” Hauser v. Urchisin, 231 So. 2d 6, 8 (Fla.

1970) (emphasis added). “Florida law affords this protection to low-

level, as well [as] high-placed, public officials.” Stephens, 702 So.

5

2d at 522 (emphasis added); see, e.g., City of Miami v. Rivera, 348

So. 3d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (fire chief); Quintero, 300 So. 3d 288

(mayor); del Pino Allen, 271 So. 3d 1112 (public college professor);

Weeks v. Town of Palm Beach, 252 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)

(several municipal employees, including the town manager,

director of public safety, and director of human resources); Prins v.

Farley, 208 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (member of a city

council); Palm Beach Cnty. Health Care Dist., 13 So. 3d 1090

(public hospital district’s trauma agency director); Cassell, 964 So.

2d 190 (police lieutenant); Alfino v. Dep’t of HRS, 676 So. 2d 447

(Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (deputy district administrator and operational

program administrator at a state agency).

However, Hospital does not identify any authority which

suggests that a private lawyer morphs into a public officer for

purposes of absolute immunity simply by representing a

government agency. By not doing so, Hospital fails to carry its

burden of showing that the trial court—by rejecting Hospital’s

claim of absolute immunity as to Counsel—violated “a clearly

established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”

See Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d at 889; Scotty’s, Inc. v. Olivieri, 713

So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (reiterating that “[t]he

burden of showing the appellate court that the trial court’s order

departed from the essential requirements of law is on the

petitioner”).

III.

The law is clear that Hospital has absolute immunity from

Doctor’s claims that are based on statements made by CEO, a

public official acting within the scope of his duties. The trial court’s

erroneous rejection of Hospital’s immunity in this regard is a

departure from the law’s essential requirements that irreparably

harms Hospital. On the other hand, the law is far from clear that

Hospital has absolute immunity from Doctor’s claims that are

based on statements made by Counsel, an attorney in private

practice. The trial court’s denial of Hospital’s immunity in that

regard is not a departure from the law’s essential requirements.

Accordingly, we grant Hospital’s petition as to Doctor’s claims

that are based on CEO’s statements. As to those statements only,

6

we quash the trial court’s order and remand with instructions to

grant Hospital’s motion to dismiss. As to Doctor’s claims that are

based on Counsel’s statements, we deny Hospital’s petition. See

Okaloosa County v. Custer, 697 So. 2d 1297, 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA

1997) (granting a certiorari petition—which challenged the trial

court’s denial of a motion to dismiss—as to the portion of the

plaintiff’s complaint that was barred by the statute of limitations,

but denying relief as to the portion that was not); see also

Dominguez v. Omana, 381 So. 3d 1271, 1273–74 (Fla. 6th DCA

2024) (granting certiorari relief from the trial court’s discovery

order because the order, in effect, required the petitioner to

produce irrelevant medical records alongside relevant ones).

PETITION GRANTED in part, ORDER QUASHED in part, and

REMANDED with instructions.

JAY, EISNAUGLE, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331.

_____________________________

7