DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SYLVIA SIEGFRIED, M.D.,

PALM BEACH OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.A.,

GOOD SAMARITAN MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a

GOOD SAMARITAN MEDICAL CENTER, MARCELA LAZO, M.D.,

LORI SEVALD, M.D., DEBRA JONES, M.D., JOY CAVALARIS, M.D.,

and BARBARA TELAN, ARNP, CNM,

Petitioners,

v.

YANARA AVILA-CANA and JULIA HASSAN,

individually and on behalf of S.H., a minor child,

Respondents.

No. 4D2024-1338

[August 14, 2024]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Bradley G. Harper, Judge; L.T. Case 

Nos. 502020CA012522 and 502020CA014382.

Dinah S. Stein and Philip M. Berberian of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & 

Stein, P.A., Miami, for petitioners Palm Beach Obstetrics & Gynecology, 

P.A., and Sylvia Siegfried, M.D.

Nicholas S. Madsen of Adams Coogler, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

petitioners Palm Beach Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A., Marcela Lazo, M.D., 

Sylvia Siegfried, M.D., Lori Sevald, M.D., Joy Cavalaris, M.D. and Barbara 

Telan, ARNP, CNM.

Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M. Schwarz of Link & Rockenbach, 

PA, West Palm Beach, and Maria D. Tejedor and Carlos Diez-Arguelles of 

Diez-Arguelles & Tejedor, P.A., Orlando, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Medical malpractice defendants Sylvia Siegfried, M.D., and Palm Beach 

Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A., timely petition for a writ of certiorari,

seeking to quash an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to lift stay. We 

grant the petition. The trial court departed from the essential 
2

requirements of law in allowing the case to proceed in violation of the 

exclusiveness of remedy provision of the Florida Birth-Related Neurological 

Injury Compensation Plan (NICA). See § 766.303(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).

We have certiorari jurisdiction to enforce NICA’s immunity from suit

and presuit requirements. See Pediatrix Med. Grp. of Fla., Inc. v. Falconer, 

31 So. 3d 310, 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (explaining that certiorari lies to 

enforce immunity from suit under NICA); Univ. of Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 

2d 999, 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (granting certiorari from an order denying 

a motion to abate an action pending a determination of whether a claim 

was compensable under NICA).

Plaintiffs filed the underlying medical malpractice case based on 

injuries suffered by their child during birth.

In July 2022, the trial court properly granted Dr. Siegfried’s motion to 

abate the action until plaintiffs filed a petition under NICA as to Dr. 

Siegfried and until plaintiffs obtained a final order from an Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ).1 See § 766.304, Fla. Stat. (2016) (“No civil action may 

be brought until the determinations under s. 766.309 have been made by 

the [ALJ].”).

Pursuant to NICA, an ALJ has exclusive jurisdiction to determine 

whether a claimed injury is compensable under the plan. The ALJ must 

determine whether a birth-related neurological injury is claimed and 

“[w]hether obstetrical services were delivered by a participating physician 

in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate 

postdelivery period in a hospital.” § 766.309(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016). A 

plaintiff may not bring suit until an ALJ has made these determinations 

and, when contested, whether the participating physician, and hospital 

with the participating physician on its staff, provided the notice to 

obstetrical patients required by sections 766.316 and 766.309(1)(d) of the 

Florida Statutes.

Before filing suit, plaintiffs served notice of intent to initiate litigation 

and named other medical providers in a NICA petition. The ALJ found 

that the claims were compensable as to the other medical providers.

Plaintiffs, however, did not name Dr. Siegfried in the NICA petition. Dr. 

Siegfried was not served and did not participate in the administrative 

proceedings. The ALJ has not made the findings required by section 

766.309 as to the claim against Dr. Siegfried.

1 In 4D2022-2301, plaintiffs sought certiorari review of this ruling. This Court 

denied plaintiffs’ petition.
3 

In July 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen in the closed 

administrative case. The ALJ sent the parties a letter explaining that the 

2019 case was closed with prejudice and could not be reopened. A final 

order was entered in October 2020, and no appeal was taken. The ALJ 

explained that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction 

to consider the motion to reopen the 2019 case. 

Plaintiffs then moved the trial court to lift the stay, arguing that they 

had complied with the court’s abatement order by trying to reopen the 

administrative case. The trial court agreed and entered the order on 

review. 

We agree with petitioners that the trial court departed from the 

essential requirements of law in allowing the suit to proceed without the 

required determinations as to Dr. Siegfried. See Univ. of Miami, 793 So. 

2d at 1000 (concluding that trial court departed from the essential 

requirements of law in failing to abate an action where an ALJ had not 

determined whether the claim was compensable under NICA). 

The ALJ’s letter advising plaintiffs that a motion to reopen could not be 

filed in the closed 2019 case does not satisfy the requirements of section 

766.304, Florida Statutes (2016), which states: “No civil action may be 

brought until the determinations under s. 766.309 have been made by the 

administrative law judge.” Plaintiffs did not file a new NICA petition 

naming Dr. Siegfried. This would have opened a new case that would have 

allowed the ALJ to make the required determinations. 

A determination of whether the claim against Dr. Siegfried is 

compensable under NICA is critical because, if so, Dr. Siegfried may be 

sued only if “there is clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or 

malicious purpose or willful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, 

or property.” § 766.303(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).2

2 This subsection makes NICA the exclusive remedy for covered claims and 

provides:

(2) The rights and remedies granted by this plan on account of a 

birth-related neurological injury shall exclude all other rights and 

remedies of such infant, her or his personal representative, parents, 

dependents, and next of kin, at common law or otherwise, against 

any person or entity directly involved with the labor, delivery, or 

immediate postdelivery resuscitation during which such injury 

occurs, arising out of or related to a medical negligence claim with 

respect to such injury; except that a civil action shall not be 
4 

Plaintiffs’ contention that it satisfied the statute because Siegfried’s 

employer—Palm Beach Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.A.—participated in the 

NICA proceeding has no merit.3 Plaintiffs did not provide notice that they 

intended to sue Dr. Siegfried when they filed the NICA petition. Dr. 

Siegfried was not served or given an opportunity to participate in the NICA 

proceedings. Before plaintiffs may proceed with a suit based on Dr. 

Siegfried’s conduct, an ALJ must make the required determinations under 

section 766.309. 

Plaintiffs’ other arguments have no merit and do not warrant 

discussion. The petition is granted, and the trial court’s order lifting the 

stay is quashed. 

Petition granted. 

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur. 

* * * 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

foreclosed where there is clear and convincing evidence of bad faith 

or malicious purpose or willful and wanton disregard of human 

rights, safety, or property, provided that such suit is filed prior to 

and in lieu of payment of an award under ss. 766.301-766.316. 

Such suit shall be filed before the award of the division becomes 

conclusive and binding as provided for in s. 766.311.

§ 766.303(2) (emphasis added). 

3 Plaintiffs have not conceded that the claim against Dr. Siegfried is compensable 

under NICA or that the ALJ’s findings as to Palm Beach Obstetrics & Gynecology, 

P.A., extend to Siegfried.