Case Information
*1 D ISTRICT C OURT O F A PPEAL O F T HE S TATE O F F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a ST. LUCIE MEDICAL CENTER,
Petitioner,
v. SARAH BYERS-MCPHEETERS; BRYAN MCPHEETERS; MICHAEL ANTHONY MELONI, JR., M.D.; J.H. GATEWOOD EMERGENCY SERVICES, P.A.; EMCARE PHYSICIAN PROVIDERS, INC.; and EM-1
MEDICAL SERVICES, P.A., Respondents.
No. 4D15-4709
[June 29, 2016] Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Janet Carney Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562011CA003154.
Michael R. D'Lugo and Adam W. Rhys of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner.
Philip M. Burlington and Adam J. Richardson of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents Sarah Byers- McPheeters and Bryan McPheeters.
P ER C URIAM .
Petitioner seeks certiorari relief from a November 16, 2015 order granting Respondents’ motion for leave to assert a punitive damages claim. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995).
The trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 when it expressly deferred making a finding on whether *2 the Respondents’ proffer established a reasonable basis for recovery pursuant to section 768.72(3). [1]
Under section 768.72(3), the legislature established a heightened standard for imposing punitive damages on an employer rather than adopting the common law rules of agency and vicarious liability. See Coronado Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. La Corte , 103 So. 3d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in allowing Respondents to plead a punitive damages claim without first determining whether the heightened requirements of section 768.72(3) were met. See Strasser v. Yalamanchi , 677 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
We grant the petition and quash the order on review.
Petition granted.
C IKLIN , C.J., M AY and L EVINE , JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[1] In ruling on the Respondents’ motion, the trial court stated, in part, that “whether or not there is an issue of law regarding Subsection (3) is an issue that I will address at a later time if that's developed.” (Hearing Transcript, p. 45). 2