Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC d/b/a etc. vs State of Florida, Department of Health et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D17-3171 _____________________________ BAYFRONT HMA MEDICAL CENTER, LLC d/b/a BAYFRONT HEALTH - ST. PETERSBURG, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, and GALENCARE, INC., d/b/a NORTHSIDE HOSPITAL, Appellees. _____________________________ On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings. John D.C. Newton, II, Administrative Law Judge. October 15, 2018 PER CURIAM. The recent convergence of this Court’s decision in State, Department of Health v. Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC, 236 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), and chapter 2018-66, Laws of Florida, has rendered the instant appeal moot and subject to dismissal. See Montgomery v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014, 1016-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (explaining that “[a] case becomes moot, for purposes of appeal, where, by a change of circumstances prior to the appellate decision, an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant a party any effectual relief,” and emphasizing that “[i]t is the function of a judicial tribunal to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue”). DISMISSED. WOLF, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ Geoffrey D. Smith, Timothy B. Elliott, and Corinne T. Porcher of Smith & Associates, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Stephen A. Ecenia, David M. Maloney, and Gabriel F. V. Warren of Rutledge Ecenia, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Northside Hospital. Jason Gonzalez and Amber Stoner of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Department of Health. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
