PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEUROLOGY PARTNERS EMAS (2018)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, P.A., d/b/a EMAS Spine & Brain Specialists a/a/o Rachel K. Kopp, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1351

Decided: August 24, 2018

Michael C. Clarke, Betsy Ellwanger Gallagher, and Danielle M. Lutyk of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner. Adam Saben of Shuster & Saben, LLC, Jacksonville, for Respondent.

Dismissed. See Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1093 (Fla. 2010) (emphasizing that “certiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error” and explaining that “a circuit court appellate decision made according to the forms of law and the rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as applied to facts, is not a departure from the essential requirements of law remediable by certiorari”)(emphasis in original); State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CC Chiropractic, LLC, 245 So.3d 755, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (discussing the limitations on second-tier certiorari review and noting that “[a] denial of discretionary second-tier certiorari review should not be construed to mean that we approve of the underlying decisions”).

Per Curiam.

Wetherell, Bilbrey, and M.K. Thomas, 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Out of date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