The Florida Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that HMOs can be included among the defendants of law suits, "even if there is no explicit
claim that the HMO per se did something wrong." HMOs have argued that because they don't directly control what their doctors do, they should have no liability under federal (e.g., ERISA) or state law. In this view,
doctors function as independent contractors. This case, however, raised such questions as: If the HMO defines what is "medically necessary," are the doctors functioning "independently"? The FL
Supreme Court wrote: "The physician's contractual independent contractor status does not alone preclude a finding of agency." They held that whether there was agency was an issue of fact for the trail court to decide.
Here is a striking quote from the FL Supreme Court's opinion: "While physicians in the past in the traditional pattern of American life may have constituted distinct independent entities and independent centers of occupation
and profession, that model has been dramatically altered through the HMO concept in a significant manner which a legal system cannot simply ignore. The thought of visiting a private and independent office of a totally independent
physician may now be one more of history and cultural conditioning than current reality. The economic structures alone may so impact the relationships that the prism through which we consider and evaluate issues of control must be
honed for this current reality." The text of the FL Supreme Court's 28-page opinion in Rolando Villazon v. Prudential Health Care (No. SC01-1397), which was handed down last Thursday, can be found at <
