Court Opinion

ID: 9905444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 16:04:45.497397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:36.399566
License: Public Domain

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
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

                                 2
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

                                 3
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.

                                4