OSCEOLA REGIONAL HOSPITAL v. CALZADA CRNA OB OB LLC (2018)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

OSCEOLA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, d/b/a Osceola Regional Medical Center, Petitioner, v. Ashley CALZADA and Juan L. Calzada, Individually and o/b/o J.L.C.O., a Child, Eric Frendak, CRNA, Osceola OB/Gyn, Michael R. Denardis, D.O., OB Hospitalist Group, LLC, Ezer A. Ojeda, M.D., et al., Respondents.

Case No. 5D17–4097

Decided: July 06, 2018

Jason M. Azzarone, David S. Nelson, and Louis J. La Cava, of La Cava & Jacobson, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner. Heather M. Kolinsky, of Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for Respondents Ashley Calzada and Juan Calzada, individually and on behalf of J.L.C.O., a Child. No Appearance for other Respondents.

Osceola Regional Hospital, d/b/a Osceola Regional Medical Center (“Osceola Hospital”), a defendant in a medical malpractice action brought by Ashley and Juan Calzada, seeks certiorari review of an order denying its motion to dismiss complaint. In its motion, Osceola Hospital alleged, inter alia, that the Calzadas had failed to comply with certain presuit investigation requirements applicable to medical malpractice cases under chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2013), with regard to their claims that Osceola Hospital was liable for the actions of three identified nurses. Because the trial court denied the motion without making necessary findings, we grant the petition.

Osceola Hospital's motion required the trial court to determine whether the Calzadas complied with chapter 766. However, after conducting a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court simply denied the motion without explanation. By doing so, the trial court “effected a denial of the procedural safeguards of chapter 766 for which certiorari relief is appropriate.” PP Transition, LP v. Munson, 232 So.3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (granting certiorari relief where trial court denied hospital's motion to dismiss without making express findings on plaintiffs' compliance with presuit investigation requirements applicable to medical malpractice cases); see also Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber, 984 So.2d 661, 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that trial court departed from essential requirements of law by failing to determine whether patient conducted reasonable investigation and whether her claim rested on reasonable basis). On remand, the trial court shall make express findings as to whether the Calzadas complied with chapter 766's presuit requirements.¹

PETITION GRANTED.

FOOTNOTES

1. Our decision does not preclude the trial court from addressing the Calzadas' claim that they were excused from providing a corroborating affidavit because of Osceola Hospital's alleged failure to timely provide requested medical records pursuant to section 766.204, Florida Statutes (2013).

PER CURIAM.

SAWAYA, TORPY AND EVANDER, 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