DELTA HEALTH GROUP, INC., ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
VIRGINIA JACKSON, ETC., 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.
Delta Healthcare Group sought certiorari review of a trial court's order allowing an amended complaint to include a punitive damages claim. The court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of evidence supporting punitive damages claims, though it has jurisdiction to ensure compliance with procedural requirements under Florida Statute § 768.72.
An appellate court has certiorari jurisdiction only to review whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of § 768.72, Florida Statutes, but lacks jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of evidence supporting a punitive damages claim. The procedural requirements were met here because the claimant sought leave of court and proffered evidence at a hearing, which the trial court found sufficient.
[1] Certiorari review of an order granting leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages is limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural r…
[2] Appellate courts do not have certiorari jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of evidence supporting a punitive damages claim.
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“An appellate court has certiorari jurisdiction to review only whether the trial court has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2001), in allowing a punitive damages claim; the court does not have certiorari jurisdiction to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to allow a punitive claim.”
Establishes the court's holding regarding the scope of certiorari jurisdiction in punitive damages cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a punitive damages claim. At a hearing, the plaintiff proffered evidence in suppo…
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 Reasonable Showing By Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Petitioners/defendants, Delta Healthcare Group, Inc., et al., seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Because the court’s order is not reviewable by certiorari, we dismiss the petition.
An appellate court has certiorari jurisdiction to review only whether the trial court has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2001), in allowing a punitive damages claim; the court does not have certiorari jurisdiction to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to allow a punitive claim. See Munroe Regional Health Systems, Inc. v. Estate of Gustl J. Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also, Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995). Compare Stephanos v. Paine, 727 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court departed from essential requirements of law by failing to dismiss amended complaint claiming punitive damages filed without first obtaining leave of court).
Section 768.72 states, “[i]n any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which will provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.” In the instant case, the claimant sought leave of court by filing a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. She then proffered evidence at a hearing in support of her punitive damages claim. After hearing the proffer, the trial court found the proffer sufficient to allow the punitive damages claim. Therefore, the procedural requirements of section 768.72 were met in this case.
It is evident that petitioners’ arguments ultimately take issue with the sufficiency of the evidence that was proffered in support of the punitive damages claim. We note that the trial judge found the proffer to be “thin.” However, we are precluded from addressing the sufficiency of the evidence by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Globe.
We write, however, to emphasize our agreement with Judge Cobb’s special concurrence in Gonzales wherein he wrote:
[Cjertiorari should be available to review whether the plaintiff has established a preliminary evidentiary basis for a punitive damages claim. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. Otherwise, the defendant is subject to improper financial discovery without any effective appellate review. His substantive right against such an intrusion therefore becomes illusory.
Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133.
The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
THOMPSON, C.J., concurs.
SHARP, W., J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. THE Est. of Bill Croft, SR., 299 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…; see also Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 263 So. 3d 133, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ("[W]e do not have jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence proffered to support the punitive damages claim."); Delta Health Grp., Inc. v. Jackson, 798 So. 2d 857, 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("[T]he [appellate] court does not have certiorari jurisdiction to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to allow a punitive claim."). "Simply put, a trial court's application of the correct law is not reviewable b…
-
Parker, Landerman & Parker, P.A. v. Riccard, 871 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…to amend the complaint once the procedural requirements have been followed. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995). See also Massey Services, Inc. v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Delta Health Group, Inc. v. Jackson, 798 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Here, no procedural error appears. The certiorari petition is based on the contention that the facts in the record do not support a claim for punitive damages. This is the type of issue that this court cannot review by certiora…
-
Tenet Hialeah Healthsystem, Inc. v. Yailenis Gonzalez and Dunieski Anzon, 196 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…termining whether the trial court followed the procedural requirements. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995); Parker, Landerman & Parker, P.A. v. Riccard, 871 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Delta Health Grp., Inc. v. Jackson, 798 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Munroe Reg’l Health Sys., Inc. v. Estate of Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, because the lower court complied with the procedural requirements in making its determination in this case, we deny the peti…
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Munroe Reg'l Health Sys., Inc. v. The Est. OF Gustl J. Gonzales, 795 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Bleau Stephanos v. Paine, 727 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)