VICORP RESTAURANTS, INC., AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC. (SERVICING AGENT), PETITIONERS,
v.
SAM ARIDI, RESPONDENT
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.
VICORP Restaurants and its servicing agent sought extraordinary relief (certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition) to review an interlocutory discovery order limiting the scope of a workers' compensation claimant's deposition. The court denied the petition, holding that petitioners had an adequate remedy through appeal from a final order and that orders denying discovery relief do not warrant extraordinary writ review.
Petitioners are not entitled to extraordinary writ relief because they have a complete and adequate remedy through plenary appeal from a final order. An order denying discovery does not meet the standard for certiorari relief requiring a departure from essential requirements of law and absence of adequate appellate remedy.
[1] Extraordinary writs are generally not available when a party has an adequate remedy by appeal from a final order.
[2] An order denying discovery does not typically depart from the essential requirements of law, precluding certiorari relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“as the alleged error complained of has been properly preserved for appellate review (and may again be raised at the hearing), petitioners will have a complete and adequate remedy on plenary appeal should claimant prevail in the lower tribunal”
Establishes that an adequate appellate remedy exists and extraordinary relief is inappropriate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVICORP Restaurants and Gallagher Bassett Services contested a workers' compensation wage loss benefits claim filed by Sam Aridi for injuries from a wo…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners have filed a petition seeking review of an interlocutory order of Deputy Commissioner C.J. Hardee, Jr. They ask that this court employ, alternatively, the remedies of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, or “writ necessary or proper to the complete exercise of this court’s jurisdiction.” As we find that petitioners have a complete and adequate remedy on appeal from final order, we deny the petition.
The employer and its servicing agent, petitioners, have contested respondent/claimant’s claim for wage loss benefits for injuries suffered as a result of a work-related fall in January of 1986. At a discovery deposition, petitioners elicited testimony from Aridi that suggested he had enjoyed a substantial income in recent months. After conducting an investigation, petitioners scheduled a second deposition of claimant and sought to inquire further about Aridi’s source(s) of income. Ari-di invoked his Fifth Amendment privelege against self-incrimination and refused to answer these questions. The employer/servicing agent recessed the deposition and filed motions to dismiss and to compel in the lower tribunal.
On July 13,1987, the deputy commissioner entered an order that denied the motion to dismiss and which compelled the claimant to appear at another deposition but the scope of questions to be asked therein were limited to those concerning physical limitations, medical treatment, and related matters.
First, we find that if any remedy were appropriate to review the deputy’s order, it would be certiorari.1 In order to show a preliminary basis for certiorari relief, petitioner must demonstrate that the order to be reviewed departs from the essential requirements of law and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal from final order. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987).
The general principle is well-settled that an order denying discovery does not meet this test, Es-man v. Board of Regents, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Despite petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, we find that, as the alleged error complained of has been properly preserved for appellate review (and may again be raised at the hearing), petitioners will have a complete and adequate remedy on plenary appeal should claimant prevail in the lower tribunal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for extraordinary writ.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . The deputy’s order is, of course, non-ñnal. Petitioners contend that mandamus is appropriate because the deputy failed to act on their motion to compel. While the order fails to explicitly state that the motion is granted or denied, its terms make clear that the motion was denied. We are not persuaded by the arguments made by the petitioners regarding the prohibition and "all writs necessary and proper” remedies.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruiz v. Leonard Steiner, M.D., 599 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…scovery is ordinarily not reviewable by certiorari because the harm from such orders, as a general rule, can be rectified upon plenary appeal. See American Southern Co. v. Tinter, 565 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. v. Aridi, 510 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987); National Beverage Suppliers, Inc. v. Esquire Products of Florida, Inc., 493 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). However, certiorari review of orders denying discovery has been granted where it wa…
-
Vill. INN Rest. & Gallagher-Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…oncerning the amount and sources of his income. By an earlier order, the DC denied the E/C’s motions to dismiss and to compel which, in effect, upheld claimant’s invocation of the privilege. The E/C appealed and in Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. v. Aridi, 510 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987), we denied review stating that the E/C would have a complete and adequate remedy on plenary appeal. In its petition for rehearing, appellant argues that appellee, because he was the plaintiff…
-
Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. The Honorable William F. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…seeking the information had a compelling interest. Ordinarily, certiorari is not available to review an interlocutory order denying discovery because the harm from such orders can be rectified on appeal. See e.g., Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. v. Aridi, 510 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. den., 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987); National Beverage Suppliers, Inc. v. Esquire Products of Florida, Inc., 493 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hydrocarbon Trading and Transport Co. v. Rameo International, Inc., 488 So. 2d 175 (Fla…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Spike von Zamft v. Heller, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)