Case Name: Carolann D. KOZEL, Appellant, v. D. Steven OSTENDORF, D.P.M., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-07-24
Citations: 603 So. 2d 602
Docket Number: No. 91-00174
Parties: Carolann D. KOZEL, Appellant, v. D. Steven OSTENDORF, D.P.M., Appellee.
Judges: HALL, A.C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 603
Pages: 602–606

Head Matter:
Carolann D. KOZEL, Appellant, v. D. Steven OSTENDORF, D.P.M., Appellee.
No. 91-00174.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 24, 1992.
Kelley A. Finn of Kelley Finn Law Offices, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Gerald W. Pierce of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellee.

Opinion:
McDONALD, RANDALL G., Associate Judge.
Carolann Kozel appeals an order of the circuit court which dismisses her medical malpractice complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
The order under review is actually the second dismissal in the case. Initially the circuit court, upon a finding that the complaint failed to allege a cause of action, dismissed without prejudice to refile. The first order of dismissal allowed Kozel a twenty-day period within which to amend her complaint; that time period was extended another ten days by agreement of the parties. Nevertheless, Kozel, without first seeking permission of the court, delayed filing her amended complaint until over five months past the due date established by the order and extension. The circuit court then entered the second order of dismissal, this time with prejudice.
As pointed out by the dissent, dismissal is a harsh sanction. Even so, we believe that it is within the discretion of a trial court to dismiss a complaint when the plaintiff fails to timely file an amendment after being directed to do so. That is, before reversing such a dismissal this court must be convinced that the trial court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Johnson v. Landmark First Nat'l Bank, 415 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Neida's Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor & Co., 348 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 883 (Fla.1978). Particularly given the extreme delay in amending the complaint, and the lack of any showing that the delay was solely the fault of counsel, we are not persuaded that dismissal was an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
HALL, A.C.J., concurs.
ALTENBERND, J., dissents with opinion.
. Although Kozel also argues this ruling was erroneous, we agree with the circuit court that the complaint was deficient.