Case ID: so2d_862/html/0735-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Artae PEARSON, Appellant, v. PORTER, BROWN, CHITTY & PIRKLE, M.D., P.A. and Tenet Health Systems North Shore, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 3D03-125.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 8, 2003.
    Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 14, 2004.
    Joel Kaplan, Miami, for appellant.
    McGrane & Nosieh, P.A., Coral Gables, and Ruben V. Chavez; Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Cortina, P.A. and Gail Leverett Parenti, Coral Gables, for appel-lee.
    Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

As this court has previously held that appellant’s complaint failed to state a cause of action under Chapter 395, the anti-dumping statute (see Porter, Brown, Chitty & Pirkle, M.D., P.A. v. Pearson, 793 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)), the trial court did not have discretion to permit the appellant to amend his complaint on remand. See Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.1981)(“[A] procedure which allows an appellate court to rule on the merits of a trial court judgment and then permits the losing party to amend his initial pleadings to assert matters not previously raised renders a mockery of the ‘finality’ concept in our system of justice.”). We therefore affirm.