A Florida appellate court determined that a lower court had erred in compelling arbitration of a medical malpractice dispute without the statutory damages cap, and reversed the trial court's ruling, so that the arbitration was subject to the statutory damages limitation.

In Leon Medical Centers, Inc. v. Martell, Nos. 3D07-96, 3D06-3099, 2008 WL 239029 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2008), Estela Martell filed a notice of intent to initiate a medical negligence claim against Leon Medical for the wrongful death of George Martell.

In response, Leon Medical offered to admit liability and submit the damages issue to arbitration. Specifically, the arbitration offer was for voluntary binding arbitration under Florida Statutes Chapter 766. Martell accepted the offer.

Prior to arbitration, Leon Medical contended that the agreement to arbitrate was subject to the damages limitations set forth in Florida Statutes § 766.207. Martell rejected Leon Medical's contention and moved to compel arbitration.

The lower court granted Martell's motion and compelled arbitration without the damages cap under Florida Statutes Chapter 44. On appeal, Leon Medical argued that the lower court compelled arbitration under the wrong statute.

In arguing there was no damages cap, Martell relied on statutory language stating that an offer to arbitrate "may be made contingent upon a limit of general damages." Because Leon Medical's offer was not stated to be contingent upon a limit of general damages, Martell argued that she interpreted the arbitration agreement to not have a limitation on general damages.

The Court rejected this argument. Leon Medical's offer letter stated that the offer was for arbitration under Chapter 766. The Court noted that § 766.207 is part of Chapter 766 and prescribes liability limitations. Since Leon Medical stated that their offer was subject to Chapter 766, the offer to arbitrate also included the statutory damages limitations.

Accordingly, the Court determined that the lower court erred in compelling arbitration under Chapter 44. Instead, the Court determined that the arbitration should proceed under Chapter 766 with the statutory limitation on damages.