somenonfinALordersinmediCALnegLigenCeCAsesnowAPPeALABLe
Appellate Practice Section Chairs : BrandonBreslow – Kynes , Markman & Felman & DavidCostello – FLOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
thisyear , theCourt hasagainexpanded appellatejurisdiction overnonfinalorders .
Last year , as Garrett Tozier explained in the March / April issue of this publication , the Florida Supreme Court amended the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to permit nonfinal appeals of orders that grant or deny a motion for leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages . 1 This year , the Court has again expanded appellate jurisdiction over nonfinal orders . In an opinion issued July 6 , 2023 , the Court sua sponte amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 , the rule governing nonfinal appeals , to permit appeals of any order “ deny [ ing ] a motion to dismiss on the basis of the qualifications of a corroborating expert witness under subsections 766.102 ( 5 ) - ( 9 ), Florida Statutes .” 2 The Court made the amendment effective immediately , but subject to comments that it invited interested persons to make by September 19 , 2023 . 3
The reason for the Court ’ s amendment is explained in an opinion issued the same day , University of Florida Board of Trustees v . Carmody , No . SC2022- 0068 , 2023 WL 4359489 ( Fla . July 6 , 2023 ). In Carmody , a medical malpractice defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the plaintiff ’ s complaint on the grounds that the expert who provided a required presuit affidavit corroborating the alleged negligence was not qualified to do so . 4 The defendant then unsuccessfully sought certiorari review in the First District , contending — as certiorari requires — that the order denying dismissal “ departed from the essential requirements of the law ” and caused “ irreparable harm .” 5 The supreme court agreed with the First District that certiorari review was not available because a trial court ’ s order on the merits of whether an expert had the necessary qualifications could not “ depart from the essential requirements of the law .” 6 Rather , certiorari review was only available if a trial court failed to enforce the “ procedural aspects ” of the presuit requirements . 7
Continuedonpage19
����������������������������������������� ������������������������������
������������
������������������������������ ���������������������
�������������������������������������� �������������������������������
������������������������������������
������������ �����������������������
1 8 S E P - O C T 2 0 2 3 | H C B A L A W Y E R