STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
COMPLETE CARE & REHABILTATION INC., A/A/O IDOLIDIA
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.
State Farm petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge a trial court's order granting Complete Care's request to conduct an in camera inspection of State Farm's claims file and ordering disclosure of certain documents while protecting others under work-product privilege. The appellate court denied the petition because State Farm failed to provide a transcript of the hearings necessary to establish the legal basis for its challenge.
The court denied State Farm's petition for certiorari because State Farm failed to provide a transcript of the hearings or an acceptable alternative, thereby failing to establish the legal basis for the trial court's ruling or demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law.
[1] A party seeking certiorari relief bears the burden of demonstrating error in the trial court's ruling.
[2] Failure to provide a transcript or an acceptable alternative prevents an appellate court from reviewing the legal basis of a trial court's ruling.
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“The decision below comes to this Court clothed with the presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the standard of review requiring the petitioner to demonstrate error in the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplete Care & Rehabilitation Inc., as assignee of Idolidia Gonzalez-Corrales, filed a First Request to Produce requesting State Farm's entire claim …
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.
a/a/0 Idolidia Gonzalez-Corraies, A - . W5?’.~gm 1-Riiaaé =13 nliififl’ --= ‘T!=ZIcl 02my 55.8331; Easoz: Petitioner, ‘- Respondent. '~— . .‘ ' ' — vvvj Opinion filed ;R<.>'1~&. $0 ,2014 . . A Petition for Writ of Ceniorari from a decision rendered by the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Patricia Murillo-Ped1'aza, Judge. Jonathan S. Brooks, Bsq., ofJonathan S. Brooks, P.A., for Petitioner. Es P A for Respondent. . Marlene Reiss, Esq., ofLaw Offices ofMarlene S. Rei$$, q., . ., Before KORVICK, BLOOM, and WALSH, J];
PER CURJAM.
mobile Insurance Company (“State Farm") petitions for 0¢1'ii0l‘fl.1‘l relief of the trial oourt’s non-final Order on in camera inspection in favor of Complete Care & Rehab., Inc. as assignee ofIdolidia Gonzalez~Con‘ales (“Complete Care”). In its First Request to rocluce its entire claim file. The trial court State Farm Mutual Auto Produce, Complete Care requested State Farm p Page I of 1 mofiszaqzggg'3Egeereg [*2] -._._i-..»-...-“Q OB-80314 12:49 FROM- ' . granted a motion to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents detailed in a privilege log. After conducting an in camera review of the claims file in this case, the trial court. ordered disclosure of some of the documents in the claims file, but ordered the remainder of the documents protected by the work-product privilege. The decision below comes to this Court clothed with the presumption of correctness. Applegaie v. Barnett Bonk 0fTaIIr1hassce, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). The Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate the error. Id. State Farm provided no transcript of the hearings in this case. In failing to provide a transcript or an acceptable alternative, the Petitioner has failed to establish the legal basis of the trial court's ruling below -- the arguments made, the responses provided, as welt as the lower court‘s analysis of the information, and accordingly, it has failed to establish that the trial count departed from the essential requirements of law. See Applegate v. Barnett Bqnk of Tallalmssee, 377 So. 2d at 1152; Slate Farm Mm. Auto. Ins. C0. v. South Miami Health Center a/a/0 Haysel Herrera, Nos. 10-249 AP & 11-433 AP, FLWSUAPP 21071-IHER (Fla. llth Cir. Ct. Oct. 23. 2013). Accordingly, we deny this petition for ceitiorari. Appellate attorneys’ fees are granted to Complete Care pursuant to Florida Statute section 627.428. § 627.4280), Fla. Stat. (2014). State Farm’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees is denied. This case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DENIED
* * * * *