Background

• Ted Williams sent a March 8, 2007 presuit notice to Dr. Oken and Mayo Clinic alleging medical negligence in the Feb. 4, 2005 ER visit resulting in myocardial infarction.
• The notice included a corroborating affidavit and CV from Dr. Foster, who claimed familiarity with emergency cardiac evaluation and treatment.
• Williams later filed a formal complaint in the Fourth Judicial Circuit; Oken moved to dismiss under presuit requirements alleging Foster lacked cardiology expertise as the corroborating expert.
• The trial court denied the motion to dismiss after accepting Foster as qualified, and the First District granted certiorari to review that ruling.
• The First District quashed the trial court’s denial, holding Foster was not a qualified expert for a cardiology-related claim; Williams petitioned this Court for discretionary review.
• This Court quashes the First District’s decision, approves the Fourth District’s St. Mary’s ruling, and declines to address Williams’ remaining issues since certiorari was improperly granted.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• St. Mary's Hospital v. Bell, 785 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (presuit requirements in medical malpractice)
• Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518 (Fla. 1995) (certiorari limits to procedural conformance, not evidentiary sufficiency)
• Abbey v. Patrick, 16 So.3d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (certiorari not available to review mere legal error in presuit context)
• Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (rare interlocutory review; fosters balance between review and miscarriage of justice)
• Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995) (certiorari standard and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
• Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812 (Fla.2004) (three-element certiorari test for departure from essential requirements)