Adventist Health Sys. v. Machalek

Decision

In a unanimous decision, the appellate court dismissed the request to overturn the trial court’s decision not to dismiss the malpractice lawsuit. The ruling reads:

"We dismiss the petition because the trial court’s denial of Petitioners’ motions to dismiss is not reviewable by certiorari."

The majority dismissed the request because it would be overstepping for the appellate court to review the trial court’s decision in this case. They explain that certiorari, a common law that allows the appellate court to correct injustices from lower courts, but that it is used in limited circumstances. They say it is not intended to be used for a simple legal error.

They said that in general, a trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss does not meet the requirements of certiorari. They argue they are only able to make sure procedure is followed and requirements are met before a lawsuit. Also, that appellate review of non-final decisions are limited to those found in Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. They say if the question had been related to the qualification of the expert, it would be appropriate to review under that rule. But the question here is: Was Dr. Cohen’s affidavit provided to Petitioners by the deadline? They argue if there was an error here, it is a simple legal error. It did not deprive Petitioners of their rights and doesn’t rise to the level of an injustice. It would not be appropriate for them to review and potentially dismiss the case.

Concurring Specially: Judge Kilbane

"I write to address that precedent and its disregard of the plain text of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act’s (‘MMA’) presuit requirements."

Kilbane concurs with the majority ruling, but she wanted provide an additional opinion on a precedent that exists related to this law.

Kilbane argues that the law on this is clear: failure to comply with presuit requirements must end with a dismissal. She says that historically, courts have seen a “perceived” conflict between this law from the Legislature and Florida’s constitutional protection giving people access to the court system. Kilbane is concerned that since 1976 courts who rule on this conflict have repeatedly chosen to protect the right to the courts. This creates a precedent where the law requiring a dismissal is not enforced. She suggests that this “well intentioned” precedent is the same as re-writing the law and violate the separation of powers.

Ultimately, Kilbane argues in general that precedent should not be followed when it conflicts with an existing law.