FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Nos. 1D2023-0358

 1D2023-0839

 1D2023-1518

(Consolidated for disposition)

_____________________________

CURTIS GORHAM,

Appellant,

v.

DR. GARY H. LAVINE; DR. EMILY 

D. BILLINGSLEY; KENDREA 

VIRGIL, RN; LLOYD G. LOGUE;

DONNA BAIRD; JOSEPH R.

IMPICCICHE (CEO); JUNCO 

EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS; BAY 

COUNTY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC;

DANIEL COUSIN; PAYPAL, INC.; 

and STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Elijah Smiley, Judge.

November 29, 2023

PER CURIAM.

We have consolidated these three appeals for disposition 

because they arise out of the same proceeding below. Appellant 
2

filed suit primarily for medical malpractice against numerous 

healthcare providers and entities. In the same complaint, 

Appellant sued the expert witness he retained to furnish the 

statutorily required opinion that malpractice had occurred. The 

expert determined that there was no deviation from the medical 

standard of care and therefore that he could not give the requested 

opinion. Given that opinion, Appellant also sued PayPal for 

refusing to refund Appellant’s payment to the expert. Appellant 

also sued the State of Florida for improperly enacting statutory 

requirements for malpractice suits. We address the three resulting 

appeals in the order in which they were filed.

Case No. 1D2023–0358.

Appellant challenges the order dismissing with prejudice all 

claims against the expert witness. This is a final and appealable 

order over which we have jurisdiction. On its merits, we affirm. To 

the limited extent we can derive a preserved legal argument from 

Appellant’s filings, it appears he argues that this order is invalid 

because the trial court used Appellant’s personal e-mail address in 

the order, rather than a separate e-mail address Appellant had 

provided for service. This argument is not supported by any legal 

authority, and it is meritless.

Case No. 1D2023–0839.

Appellant challenges four orders. One cancelled all pending 

hearings. This procedural order is not appealable, and we dismiss 

as to this order.

The second challenged order dismissed all claims against 

PayPal without prejudice. Such an order is not ripe for appeal. See 

Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So. 2d 1009, 1010–11 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2007) (explaining that a dismissal without prejudice is not 

appealable unless it is clear in the order that any further 

proceedings must be brought in a separate action). We dismiss as 

to this order as well.

The third order granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice 

claims against Bay County Health System, LLC. Because this 

order merely grants a motion and does not contain final language 
3

actually dismissing the claims, it is not appealable. See Johnson v. 

First City Bank of Gainesville, 491 So. 2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1986) (explaining that an order granting a motion to dismiss with 

prejudice, but not actually dismissing the case, is not final and 

appealable); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(l). We dismiss as to this 

order.

The fourth order dismissed with prejudice all claims against 

Drs. Billingsley and Logue. This order is final and appealable, and 

the notice of appeal was timely; therefore we have jurisdiction. We 

affirm on the merits.

It is undisputed that Appellant failed to comply with the 

medical malpractice presuit requirements, and that the time for 

doing so has long since passed, barring his action under the statute 

of limitations. He nevertheless appears to argue that he is exempt 

from these requirements under what he calls the “foreign body 

retainment” doctrine, since he “retained” radiation from his CT 

scan. There is no legal support for this absurd argument, which 

the trial court correctly rejected. 

Case No. 1D2023–1518.

Appellant attacks the same non-appealable scheduling order 

challenged in Case No. 2023-0839. Further, this notice of appeal 

was untimely. We therefore dismiss Case No. 2023-1518 without 

further discussion.

Court Warning to Appellant.

Appellant’s filings have been abusively numerous and 

fractured, utterly failing to state valid arguments in a concise and 

cogent manner. This is improper. See F.M.W. Props., Inc. v. Peoples 

First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 606 So. 2d 372, 377–78 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1992) (“We note, however, that the failure to organize arguments 

under cogent and distinct issues on appeal presents sufficient 

reason for an appellate court to decline consideration of a 

matter.”). Appellant is warned that any further such filings will 

subject him to sanctions, including dismissal of all appeals without 

further opportunity to be heard, and potentially being barred from 
4

appearing in this Court ever again unless represented by a lawyer 

in good standing with The Florida Bar.

Although Appellant has the procedural right to file a motion 

for rehearing or for rehearing en banc, in light of Appellant’s 

history of abusive filings we direct that he must combine any such 

post-decision arguments in a single document. See Fla. R. App. P. 

9.300(b). Any such motion may not merely repeat arguments 

already raised. Further, any such document shall not exceed 15 

pages and must use an authorized font. All arguments presented 

must be substantively clear, concise, and organized, with citations 

to legal authority. Any other or additional filings not expressly 

authorized by the appellate rules, and any filing that does not 

comply with these requirements, will be stricken without further 

opportunity to be heard.

All pending motions are denied.

DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part; WARNING issued.

KELSEY, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Curtis Gorham, pro se, Appellant.

Tara L. Said of Lloyd, Gray, Whitehead & Monroe, P.C., Pensacola, 

for Appellee Dr. Daniel Cousin; Joseph E. Brooks of Brooks Law, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee Junco Emergency Physicians; Erica 

Conklin Baines of Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for 

Appellee PayPal, Inc.; and Jacob M. Salow and E. Victoria Penny 

of Henry Buchanan, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees Dr. Emily 

Billingsley and Lloyd G. Logue, DO.