OMNI HEALTHCARE, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
DONALD MOSER, RESPONDENT; ADWAIT JATHAL, M.D., PETITIONER, V. DONALD MOSER, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2012-12-07
Nos. 5D12-1235, 5D12-1245
ORFINGER, CJ., SAWAYA, and BERGER, JJ., concur.
106 So. 3d 474 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

*475PER CURIAM.

Respondent filed a complaint attempting to allege simple negligence against Petitioners, who are a doctor, Adwait Jathal, and a physician group practice, Omni Healthcare, Inc. It is clear that what is alleged is a claim for medical malpractice. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss in the trial court based on Respondent’s failure to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the Motion, and Petitioners each filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this court seeking review of that order.1

We conclude that because Respondent failed to comply with the statutory presuit requirements, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in refusing to dismiss Respondent’s complaint. We grant the Petitions, quash the order of denial, and remand for entry of an order granting Petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss. See Williams v. Oleen, 62 So.2d 1129, 1133-34 (Fla.2011) (“Florida courts have created an exception to the general rule— that certiorari review is inappropriate to review the denial of a motion to dismiss— and permit certiorari review when the pre-suit requirements of a medical malpractice statute are at issue. See, e.g., Martin Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber, 984 So.2d 661, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Lakeland Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Allen, 944 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The certiorari exception for the chapter 766 presuit requirements is premised on the purpose of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act — to avoid meritless claims and to encourage settlement for meritorious claims.”).2

PETITIONS GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.

ORFINGER, CJ., SAWAYA, and BERGER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
    …ough orders denying motions to dismiss are generally not reviewable by writ of certiorari, Florida courts have created an. exception and permit certiorari review when the presuit requirements of the FMMA are at issue. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. Moser, 106 So. 3d 474, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). This exception is based on the purpose of the FMMA: to facilitate settlement and avoid baseless claims. Id. When a plaintiff files a medical malpractice action but does not satisfy the presuit notice requirements set forth…
  • …t psychiatric care ... [and that Shands’ employee] was not rendering medical or psychiatric care to Ashley Lawson” when the breach occurred. But simply labeling allegations as “ordinary negligence” is not dispositive. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. Moser, 106 So. 3d 474, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). Courts must look beyond the legal labels urged by plaintiffs and “must[ ] apply the law to the well-pleaded factual allegations and decide the legal issue of whether the complaint sounds in simple or medical negligence.” Dr…
    1 / 2
  • …2)). We consider the last two elements first, because they are jurisdictional. See id. Here, we have ---PAGE 5--- jurisdiction because the presuit requirements of a medical malpractice statute are at issue. See id.; Omni Healthcare v. Moser, 106 So. 3d 474, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). This case involves the investigation a prospective medical malpractice plaintiff must complete before filing suit. As part of this investigation, a prospective plaintiff must submit a “verified written expert opinion f…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw