OSCEOLA REGIONAL HOSPITAL

v.

CALZADA

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 OSCEOLA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, D/B/A OSCEOLA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D17-4097 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. ________________________________/ Opinion filed July 6, 2018

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Margaret H. Schreiber, Judge.

Jason M. Azzarone, David S. Nelson, and Louis J. La Cava, of La Cava & Jacobson, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.

Heather M. Kolinsky, of Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Respondents Ashley Calzada and Juan Calzada, individually and on behalf of J.L.C.O., a Child. No Appearance for other Respondents.

PER CURIAM. Osceola 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.