STEVEN RAMOS AND JULIE ANDERSEN, ON BEHALF OF GIA RAMOS, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
MELANIE COOMBS, M.D.; SOUTH FLORIDA PEDIATRIC PARTNERS, L.L.C., A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION; NICOLE MARK, M.D., AND ALAN FURIA, M.D., APPELLEES
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.
In this medical malpractice appeal, the appellants challenge an order granting a new trial on causation and damages. The appellate court found the trial court's order insufficient under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(f) because it failed to specify the specific grounds for granting the new trial, and remanded for the trial court to clarify its reasoning and determine the proper scope of the new trial.
The appellate court held that the trial court's order was insufficient because it failed to specify the specific grounds for granting the new trial as required by rule 1.580(f). The court remanded the matter to the trial court to specify those grounds and to determine whether the defendants are entitled to a new trial addressing all damage issues or only future medical damages.
[1] An appellate court shall relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of an order specifying the grounds for granting a new trial when the order granting a new tr…
[2] Orders granting a new trial must specify the specific grounds therefor.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“All orders granting a new trial shall specify the specific grounds therefor. If such an order is appealed and does not state the specific grounds, the appellate court shall relinquish its jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of an order specifying the grounds for granting the new trial.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(f) that orders granting new trials must specify their grounds, and the procedural remedy when they do not.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteven Ramos and Julie Andersen, on behalf of their minor daughter Gia Ramos, brought a medical malpractice action against Melanie Coombs, M.D., South…
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 Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, the plaintiffs below, appeal an order granting a new trial as to the issues of causation and damages in a medical malpractice case.
With respect to that portion of the trial court’s order pertaining to damages, we relinquish jurisdiction and remand to the trial court for the purpose of compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.580(f), which provides as follows:
(f) Order Granting to Specify Grounds. All orders granting a new trial shall specify the specific grounds therefor. If such an order is appealed and does not state the specific grounds, the appellate court shall relinquish its jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of an order specifying the grounds for granting the new trial.
We conclude that the reasons offered by the trial court justifying its decision to grant a new trial as to all damage issues are insufficient in light of the rule’s requirement that the order “specify the specific grounds therefor.” See Prime Motor Inns, Inc. v. Wattman, 480 So.2d 88, 89 (Fla.1985). Additionally, the trial court shall determine whether the appellees, the defendants below, are entitled to a new trial in which all damage issues will be considered, or in which only the issue of future medical damages will be addressed. See ITT Hartford Ins. Co. v. Owens, 816 So.2d 572, 577-79 (Fla.2002).
The matter is thus remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the above cited authorities. Upon completion of these further proceedings, either party may give notice to this court as to the necessity for a resumption of jurisdiction.
Remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
POLEN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramos v. Melanie Coombs, M.D., 86 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…er to the trial court with instructions to provide more specific grounds for granting a new trial as to the element of damages in a medical malpractice case involving the possible failure to diagnose a brain-stem tumor in an infant. Ramos v. Coombs, 54 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The trial court has since issued a lengthy new trial order, the parties have provided us with additional briefing as to this new order, and we now resume our jurisdiction over this appeal. Based upon our review of both the origi…
Authorities Cited
- Prime Motor Inns, Inc. v. Waltman, 480 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1985)
- Itt Hartford Ins. Co. of the Se. v. Stiles Jerry Owens and Jean A. Owens, 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002)