EMED URGENT AND PRIMARY CARE ARNP v. RIVAS PLLC LLC LLC (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

EMED URGENT AND PRIMARY CARE, P.A. d/b/a Emed Multispecialty Group, P.A., Rene U. Pulido, M.D., Juan D. Pulido, M.D., and Jessica Gomez, ARNP, Petitioners, v. Barbara RIVAS, Surviving Spouse, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Rivas, Deceased, David Smith Owens, M.D., Radiology Consultation Services, P.C., National Radiology Solutions Group, PLLC, National Radiology Solutions, LLC, Elite Imaging, LLC and Akumin Corp., Respondents.

No. 1D21-2463

Decided: March 09, 2022

Clemente J. Inclan and Jennifer L. Reiber of Saalfield Shad, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioners. Gregory S. d'Incelli and Philip Freidin of Freidin Brown, P.A., Miami; and Kimberly L. Boldt and Ryan C. Tyler of Ratzan, Weissman & Boldt, Boca Raton, for Respondents Barbara Rivas and the Estate of Jose Rivas. Jeptha Barbour and Michael Manning of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents National Radiology Solutions, Group, PLLC, Akumin Corp., Akumin, Elite Imaging, LLC d/b/a Akumin and Elite Imaging Arlington. Jason B. Vrbensky and Benjamin L. Bedard of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for Respondent David Owens.

To obtain relief by certiorari, “[t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ ” Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 454 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). “These last two elements are sometimes referred to as irreparable harm.” Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “The ‘irreparable harm’ prong of the certiorari standard—i.e., material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal—is jurisdictional and must be considered first.” CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Petitioners have failed to establish that they will suffer irreparable harm if the order under review stands. Petitioners offer only unsupported speculation of future harm, which is not sufficient to establish material injury. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Endicott, 81 So. 3d 486, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Generally speaking, irreparable harm cannot be speculative, but must be real and ascertainable.”); Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 99 So. 3d at 455 (“If the party seeking review does not demonstrate that it will suffer material injury of an irreparable nature, then an appellate court may not grant certiorari relief from a non-appealable non-final order.”). We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

Per Curiam.

Makar, Winokur, and Long, 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