RICARDO VAZQUEZ AGUILAR
v.
JOSE PEDRO ROJAS LEAL, ET AL.
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.
Ricardo Vazquez Aguilar sought a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order striking his expert witness, Dr. Santo BiFulco, for failure to timely disclose expert opinions regarding future care costs exceeding $3.4 million. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition, holding that any error in excluding the expert evidence could be remedied on appeal after final judgment and therefore did not constitute irreparable harm.
The court held that the exclusion of expert evidence, if erroneous, can be corrected on appeal of a final judgment and therefore does not constitute irreparable harm. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the writ of certiorari because irreparable harm was not established.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari requires a showing of material injury that cannot be corrected on appeal, in addition to a departure from the essential requirements of…
[2] The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional for a petition for writ of certiorari.
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 requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional.”
Establishes that irreparable harm is a jurisdictional prerequisite to certiorari review, not merely a discretionary factor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAguilar's expert, Dr. Santo BiFulco, was struck by the trial court for failure to timely disclose his opinions in violation of a pretrial order. Aguil…
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 Expert Witness Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGUE, J.
Ricardo Vazquez Aguilar petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to review a nonfinal order striking his expert, Dr. Santo BiFulco. The expert was struck because Aguilar failed to timely disclose his opinions. Aguilar subsequently filed a report detailing Dr. BiFulco's conclusions that Aguilar will need future care projected to cost $3.4 to $3.58 million. In his petition, Aguilar argues the trial court failed to properly consider the balancing test established by the Florida Supreme Court in Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310, 1314 (Fla. 1981), which governs a trial court's discretion to strike witnesses undisclosed in violation of a pretrial order. "Properly stated in its modern form, which puts the jurisdictional element first, a party seeking a writ of certiorari must establish ‘(1) a material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law." Schaeffer v. Medic, 394 So. 3d 128, 130–31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (footnote omitted) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)). “The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional.” Thomas- McDonald L. Firm, P.A. v. Silva, 400 So. 3d 753, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). "Unless the petitioner establishes irreparable harm, the court must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.” Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Stockinger v. Zeilberger, 152 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“The establishment of irreparable harm is a condition precedent to invoking certiorari jurisdiction.” (citing Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, 103 So. 3d 236, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))).
The exclusion of Aguilar's expert's evidence, if erroneous, can be corrected on appeal of a final judgment. Although Aguilar argues the evidence is material and critical to his case, he has not shown that he will be prevented from making a proffer of the evidence. Because there is no irreparable harm shown, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction as we have previously done in similar circumstances. See Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Llauro, 399 So. 3d 1206, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“The exclusion of Baptist's proffered evidence, if erroneous, can be remedied on appeal after the trial court issues a final judgment. . . .
Accordingly, there is no irreparable harm.
Thus, we are compelled to dismiss the instant petition."). Petition dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aguilar v. Leal (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…eeking a writ of certiorari must establish ‘(1) a material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law." Schaeffer v. Medic, 394 So. 3d 128, 130–31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (footnote omitted) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)). “The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional.” Thomas- McDonald L. Firm, P.A. v. Silva, 400 So. 3d 753, 754 (Fl…1 / 2
-
Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families v. Foster Parents of K.J. (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…eking a writ of certiorari must establish ‘(1) a material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law.’” Schaeffer v. Medic, 394 So. 3d 128, 130–31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)). Courts have routinely held that the improper granting of party status in a proceeding under Chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes establishes i…
-
High Rd. Constr. Inc. v. Peegz I, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…eking a writ of certiorari must establish ‘(1) a material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law.’” Schaeffer v. Medic, 394 So. 3d 128, 130–31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)). Certiorari is available to address inadequate funding of the deposit to which a construction lien is transferred pursuant to section 713.24,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stockinger v. Ulrike A. Zeilberger, 152 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. & Miami-Dade Cnty. Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, 103 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Aguilar v. Leal (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)