Skip to main content

The Hurry Family Revocable Trust v. Frankel

M.D. Fla.March 24, 2022No. 8:18-cv-02869
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Other Statutory Actions
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment
State
Florida

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The dissenting opinion argues that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the dentist defendant on the plaintiff's DTPA and breach of warranty claims, as these claims were barred by the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act's prohibition on negligence-based claims against health care providers.

What This Ruling Means

**Hurry Family Revocable Trust v. Frankel: Court Protects Healthcare Provider from Contract Claims** This case involved a dispute between patients (represented by the Hurry Family Trust) and a dentist, Dr. Terry Walden. The patients sued the dentist claiming he broke his contract with them and failed to meet certain warranties or guarantees about his dental services. The court ruled in favor of the dentist, dismissing the patients' claims. The judge found that the patients' complaints were really about medical negligence disguised as contract violations. Under Florida's Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, patients cannot get around medical malpractice laws by calling their claims "breach of contract" or "breach of warranty" instead of malpractice. This ruling matters for workers in healthcare settings because it clarifies the legal protections available to medical and dental professionals. Healthcare workers can feel more confident that they won't face contract-based lawsuits for what are essentially medical care decisions, as long as those decisions fall within their professional duties. However, this protection primarily benefits healthcare providers rather than other types of workers, and patients must still follow proper medical malpractice procedures when they believe they received substandard care.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.