OSCEOLA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, D/B/A OSCEOLA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, PETITIONER,
v.
ASHLEY CALZADA AND JUAN L. CALZADA, INDIVIDUALLY AND O/B/O J.L.C.O., A CHILD, ERIC FRENDAK, CRNA, OSCEOLA OB/GYN, MICHAEL R. DENARDIS, D.O., OB HOSPITALIST GROUP, LLC, EZER A. OJEDA, M.D., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court granted Osceola Hospital's petition for certiorari, finding that the trial court improperly denied its motion to dismiss without making necessary findings regarding compliance with Florida's presuit investigation requirements for medical malpractice cases. The case was remanded for the trial court to make express findings.
Yes, the trial court erred by denying the motion to dismiss without making the necessary findings regarding compliance with chapter 766, Florida Statutes. Certiorari relief is appropriate when a trial court fails to make such required findings.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint for failure to comply with presuit investigation requirements is reviewable by certiorari wh…
[2] A trial court must make express findings regarding a plaintiff's compliance with statutory presuit investigation requirements in medical malpractice actions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the trial court denied the motion without making necessary findings, we grant the petition.”
Establishes the basis for granting the petition for certiorari.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsceola Hospital, a defendant in a medical malpractice suit, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the plaintiffs failed to comply with statutory pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presuit Investigation Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
*1301Osceola Regional Hospital, d/b/a Osceola Regional Medical Center ("Osceola Hospital"), a defendant in a medical malpractice action brought by Ashley and Juan Calzada, seeks certiorari review of an order denying its motion to dismiss complaint. In its motion, Osceola Hospital alleged, inter alia , that the Calzadas had failed to comply with certain presuit investigation requirements applicable to medical malpractice cases under chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2013), with regard to their claims that Osceola Hospital was liable for the actions of three identified nurses. Because the trial court denied the motion without making necessary findings, we grant the petition.
Osceola Hospital's motion required the trial court to determine whether the Calzadas complied with chapter 766. However, after conducting a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court simply denied the motion without explanation. By doing so, the trial court "effected a denial of the procedural safeguards of chapter 766 for which certiorari relief is appropriate." PP Transition, LP v. Munson , 232 So.3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (granting certiorari relief where trial court denied hospital's motion to dismiss without making express findings on plaintiffs' compliance with presuit investigation requirements applicable to medical malpractice cases); see also Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber , 984 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that trial court departed from essential requirements of law by failing to determine whether patient conducted reasonable investigation and whether her claim rested on reasonable basis). On remand, the trial court shall make express findings as to whether the Calzadas complied with chapter 766's presuit requirements.1
PETITION GRANTED.
SAWAYA, TORPY AND EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adventist Health System/sunbelt, Inc. v. Machalek, 346 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber, 984 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- PP Transition, LP v. Sharon and Randall Munson, 232 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)