Court Opinion

ID: 9903729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:01:30.620516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:49.490378
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                     FIFTH DISTRICT

                                   NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                   FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                   DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT,
INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL ALTAMONTE
AND WILLIAM HUETHER, III, M.D.,

           Petitioners,

v.                                         Case No. 5D22-1898
                                           LT Case No. 2019-CA-000231

SALLY MACHALEK AND MATTHEW
APTER, M.D.,

         Respondents.
________________________________/

Opinion filed December 16, 2022

Petition for Certiorari Review of Orders from
the Circuit Court for Seminole County,
Michael J. Rudisill, Judge.

Craig S. Foels, Christian P.
Trowbridge,    and     Dinelia   A.
Concepcion, of Estes, Ingram, Foels
& Gibbs, P.A., Maitland, for
Petitioners.

Andres I. Beregovich, of The
Beregovich Law Firm, P.A., Orlando,
for Respondent, Sally Machalek.
No    Appearance         for    Other
Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

      Petitioners, Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida

Hospital Altamonte and William Huether, III, M.D., who are defendants in a

medical malpractice action brought against them by Respondent, Sally

Machalek, jointly seek certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of their

respective motions to dismiss Machalek’s first amended complaint.

Petitioners asserted in their motions that Machalek’s complaint should be

dismissed because she had failed to comply with certain statutory presuit

requirements applicable to medical malpractice actions brought under

chapter 766, Florida Statutes. While Petitioners raise several arguments

here for relief, we need only briefly address one.

      Our court has recently explained that a trial court departs from the

essential requirements of the law, thus justifying certiorari relief, when it

denies a defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s medical malpractice

action without making “express findings” as to whether the plaintiff has

complied with the statutory presuit requirements. Dontineni v. Sanderson,

346 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (citing Osceola Reg’l Hosp. v.

Calzada, 246 So. 3d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)); see also PP

Transition, LP v. Munson, 232 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (granting

                                        2
certiorari relief where the trial court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss

without making express findings as to whether the plaintiffs complied with

presuit investigation requirements applicable to medical malpractice cases).

The trial court’s separate, contemporaneously-entered, virtually identical

unelaborated orders denying Petitioners’ respective motions to dismiss do

not comply with this requirement.

      Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the orders

under review, and remand for the trial court to make the requisite express

findings as to whether Machalek complied with chapter 766’s presuit

requirements. 1

      PETITION GRANTED; ORDERS QUASHED; REMANDED for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

      1
        We find it unnecessary to reach and therefore have taken no present
position on the merits of any of the other arguments raised by Petitioners in
their petition.

                                       3