Case Name: Jeromy ANDERSON, a minor, By and Through Roxanne ANDERSON, his mother, and Roxanne Anderson, individually, Appellants, v. Charles E. LORE, M.D., D. Orvin Jenkins, M.D., Babers, Lore & Associates, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, and Michael Lee Anderson, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-05-21
Citations: 618 So. 2d 369
Docket Number: No. 92-4341
Parties: Jeromy ANDERSON, a minor, By and Through Roxanne ANDERSON, his mother, and Roxanne Anderson, individually, Appellants, v. Charles E. LORE, M.D., D. Orvin Jenkins, M.D., Babers, Lore & Associates, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, and Michael Lee Anderson, Appellees.
Judges: JOANOS, C.J., and MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 618
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
Jeromy ANDERSON, a minor, By and Through Roxanne ANDERSON, his mother, and Roxanne Anderson, individually, Appellants, v. Charles E. LORE, M.D., D. Orvin Jenkins, M.D., Babers, Lore & Associates, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, and Michael Lee Anderson, Appellees.
No. 92-4341.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 21, 1993.
Samuel Hankin and Gary S. Edinger, Hankin, Beverly & Edinger, P.A., Gaines-ville, for appellants.
Toby S. Monaco, Monaco & Monaco, Gainesville, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners in this medical malpractice action seek a writ of certiorari to reverse an order of the Circuit Court determining that the presuit investigation conducted by defendants/appellees complied with the provisions of section 766.106(3), Florida Statutes. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari will be granted only in those situations where the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or the order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and will cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings which cannot be remedied on appeal. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla.1957). See also Pitcairn v. Vowell, 580 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). On the record before us, we cannot say that the ruling of the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. Because the standard for certiorari has not been met, we deny the writ.
JOANOS, C.J., and MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.