AGUILAR v. LEAL (2026)

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.

LOGUE, J.