Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Office of the Att’y Gen., No. 1D2023-1327, 2024 WL 3807404 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 14, 2024)
The Attorney General of Florida filed suit on behalf of the State against certain opioid manufacturers, distributors, and prescribers to combat the opioid addiction epidemic. After the State filed suit, certain school boards and hospital districts—all “subdivisions” of the State—filed separate lawsuits against these opioid defendants. The Attorney General settled the suits against the defendants, and as part of the settlement, released claims of subdivisions of the State. The school boards and hospital districts that had pursued their own lawsuits challenged the Attorney General’s ability to resolve their claims against the opioid defendants.
A state circuit court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the Attorney General, ruling that the Legislature had granted the Attorney General the authority to enforce consumer protection laws, including on behalf of governmental entities, and that authority included the power to resolve and release such claims. The school boards and hospital districts appealed to the First District Court of Appeal.
On appeal, the Florida Justice Reform Institute and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America authored an amicus curiae brief in support of the Attorney General, arguing that the circuit court correctly held that the Attorney General validly released Florida political subdivisions’ claims against the opioid defendants. The amici argued that to hold otherwise, and to allow the school boards’ and hospital districts’ separate lawsuits to proceed, would open the floodgates of municipality litigation and undermine the State’s ability to implement a comprehensive response to a statewide public health crisis.
The First District reversed the circuit court’s declaratory judgment, ruling that the Attorney General did not have the power to release claims of Florida’s political subdivisions, including claims for actual and individual damages different than those generally inflicted on the State as a whole. Although the appellate court agreed that there were “many laudable goals” in achieving a global settlement, it ruled that the Attorney General could not deprive school boards and hospital districts “of their legal rights to be made whole for their unique losses.”
