A Leon County judge declined to immediately rule on a motion to dismiss the Tallahassee NAACP’s lawsuit challenging the transfer of Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare’s hospital to Florida State University, instead ordering supplemental briefs on three key legal questions that could determine whether the case survives.
Circuit Judge Lee Marsh, after an hour-long hearing July 21 with attorneys representing the city, FSU and the plaintiffs, gave the parties 30 days to submit additional legal analysis before he decides whether the lawsuit may proceed.
Specifically, Marsh said he wants more information on whether the Tallahassee Branch of the NAACP, which attorneys for FSU and the city contend is not registered as a legal entity with the state, has standing to sue. FSU attorney Eric Adams argued the branch cannot maintain the action in its own name.
The judge also requested arguments on the distinction in state law (Chapter 155.40) between an “interested person” and an “interested party,” a statutory question that goes directly to who may seek judicial review of the transaction.
A third issue concerns whether Florida’s municipal hospital transfer law applies when one governmental entity transfers assets to another governmental entity.
The NAACP argues the statute governs the controversial sale since FSU will pay the city $109 million over 30 years, with annual installments of $3.63 million dollars, to acquire the hospital. The city and FSU maintain the law was intended for transfers to private nonprofit or for-profit entities, not government-to-government transactions.
At stake are plans to develop a Florida capital city academic medical center, which offers bold promises to patients seeking better healthcare but came together under a cloud of controversy.
After months of hearings and accusations of a “hostile takeover,” the city commission approved the transfer March 13 in a split 3-2 vote, even though more than a dozen agreements between the hospital and university remained unresolved.
The NAACP was one of the leading voices of opposition trying to get the city to slow down while there was still unfinished business lingering between TMH and FSU.
Under the overarching deal, TMH will continue to operate the hospital as a non-profit and doctors and staff will remain hospital employees rather than state employees. FSU, however, now owns much of the Miccosukee Road campus and equipment as part of a $1-a-year lease deal after the City of Tallahassee divested its interest in the hospital it has claimed as its own for nearly 80 years.
Court says it’s not deciding on merits of TMH-FSU deal
Throughout the hearing, Marsh, repeatedly emphasized that he was not deciding whether the TMH-FSU deal was good public policy, but only whether the complaint is legally sufficient.
David Ashburn, a Tallahassee-based attorney with the Greenberg Traurig firm that was hired to represent the city, argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because TMH is not a “municipal hospital” under the statute and because the plaintiffs lack standing. He also maintained that existing transfer documents require charity care to continue at or above current levels.
Former Tallahassee Mayor Jack McLean, representing the NAACP, countered that the central issue is not ongoing charity care but whether state law required 50% of sale proceeds to be dedicated to indigent care programs. He argued that plaintiffs are harmed because the statute’s financial protections were bypassed.
Marsh ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs within 30 days before he rules on the city’s motion to dismiss.
“This case has never been about whether charity care will continue tomorrow,” McLean said after the hearing. “It’s about whether the law required proceeds from this transaction to be set aside for indigent care. That’s the issue we’re asking the court to decide.”
The application of the law to the hospital sale has long been debated, and even Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier weighed in on the matter in February, coming to the city and university’s same conclusion.
The city filed the motion to dismiss the lawsuit back in May, saying in the document that critics of the sale “need not worry” about indigent care because it is enshrined in the contract.
Marsh said he would take the matter under advisement after receiving the additional filings. No timetable for a final ruling was announced.
This article contains previously reported material.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Court wants more arguments before ruling to keep or toss TMH-FSU case
Reporting by James Call and Elena Barrera, Tallahassee Democrat / Tallahassee Democrat
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By James Call and Elena Barrera, Tallahassee Democrat | USA TODAY Network
