LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER INC v. LLOYD III (2000)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center, a Florida corporation; Richard Allen, M.D., Scott Katzman, M .D., Giraldo Cepeda, M.D., Juliette Lomax-Homier, M.D., Kevin O'Loughlin, M.D., Harold Schulman, M.D., James Roberts, M.D., Prithvi Sawh, M.D., Robert Anderson, D.O., and Robin Connolly, M.D.; individually and as purported members of the Medical Executive Committee of Lawnwood Medical Center, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Perry R. LLOYD, III, M.D.; David Fromang, M.D.; Ezra Marshall, M.D .; and Ramesh Nayyar, M.D.; individually and on behalf of similarly situated physicians on the Medical Staff of Lawnwood Medical Center, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 4D00-504.

Decided: December 20, 2000

Jennifer S. Carroll and Diane F. Medley of Law Offices of Jennifer S. Carroll, P.A., and Francis B. Geary, Jr. of Geary & Johnson, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants/cross-appellees. James W. Beasley, Jr. and Robert J. Hauser of Beasley, Leacock & Hauser, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees/cross-appellants. Mark S. Thomas, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae-State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration. John M. Knight, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae-Florida Medical Association, and Michael L. Ile, Anne M. Murphy and Leonard A. Nelson, Chicago, Illinois, for Amicus Curiae-American Medical Association.

We affirm the Amended Temporary Injunction entered by the trial court in this case. However, because the court set the bond in this case without allowing appellants an opportunity to address the bond amount, we remand to the trial court to set and conduct an expedited hearing to redetermine the amount of bond.

Appellees raise on cross-appeal the propriety of some of the trial court's rulings that allowed into evidence certain items. These claims are not raised in relation to the injunctive order on appeal, which appellees do not challenge. Instead, the rulings are challenged in order to prevent the use of the evidence in future proceedings. For that purpose, the rulings are not presently reviewable. They are similar to a denial of a motion in limine. Such rulings are not covered by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3), which enumerates the non-final orders which are appealable. See In re Estate of Hayward, 463 So.2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Also, the rulings are not reviewable through certiorari because an adequate remedy is available through final appeal. See Bridges v. Bridges, 734 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Hayward, 463 So.2d at 446. Accordingly, we dismiss the cross-appeal without prejudice to appellees seeking review of their claims on final appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

SHAHOOD, J.

GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network