Case ID: so2d_965/html/1274-02.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

Harvey SCHEFSKY, M.D. and North Seminole, etc., Petitioner, v. Karyn MATTHEWS, Respondent.
    No. 5D07-718.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Oct. 12, 2007.
    Art C. Young of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.
    Alan E. McMichael of Stripling, McMi-chael & Stripling, P.A., Gainesville, for Respondent.
    
      V. Julia Luyster of Valdini & Palmer, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, Amicus Curiae for Florida Defense Lawyers Assoc.
    Philip M. Burlington of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Ami-cus Curiae for Florida Justice Assoc.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Harvey W. Schefsky, M.D. and North Seminole Family Practice Associates, P.A., seek certiorari review of a sanction order issued by the trial court that excluded a witness and struck a defense. Because this non-final order does not meet the criteria for certiorari review, we deny the petition.

Certiorari review of a non-final order is appropriate only when the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So.2d 214 (Fla.1998). Certiorari review of the present sanction order is not appropriate, because the petitioners have an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

PALMER, C.J., MONACO and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.