HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A ST. LUCIE MEDICAL CENTER, PETITIONER,
v.
SARAH BYERS-MCPHEETERS; BRYAN MCPHEETERS; MICHAEL ANTHONY MELONI, JR., M.D.; J.H. GATEWOOD EMERGENCY SERVICES, P.A.; EMCARE PHYSICIAN PROVIDERS, INC.; AND EM-1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.A., RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by granting leave to assert a punitive damages claim without first determining if the statutory requirements were met.
Petitioner sought certiorari relief from an order granting Respondents' motion for leave to assert a punitive damages claim. The trial court deferred …
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 Fla. Stat. § 768.72 cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks certiorari relief from a November 16, 2015 order granting Respondents’ motion for leave to assert a punitive damages claim. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla.1995).
' The trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 when it expressly deferred making a finding on whether the Respondents’ proffer established a reasonable basis for recovery pursuant to section 768.72(3).1
Under section 768.72(3), the legislature established a heightened standard for imposing punitive damages on an employer rather than adopting the common law rules of agency and vicarious liability. See Coronado Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. La Corte, 103 So.3d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in allowing Respondents to plead a punitive damages claim without first determining whether the heightened requirements of section 768.72(3) were met. See Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
. We grant the petition and quash the order on review.
Petition granted.
CIKLIN, C.J., MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernando HMA, LLC v. Erwin, 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…court relied on Despain and failed to address whether Respondent’s punitive damages claim satisfied the applicable standard set forth in section 768.72(3), I would grant the peti [*851] tion. Cf. HCA Health Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Byers-McPheeters, 201 So. 3d 669, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (granting petition when the “trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72”). . Footnote three of Despain acknowledges that the court applied an anachronistic ver-sipn of the statute.…
-
JD Duff v. Gillian Racine, 414 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Emmett Black v. State, 677 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Coronado Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Rocque La Corte, 103 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)