Cohen v. DeYoung, 95-990
| Decision Date | 02 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-990,95-990 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1337 Jeffrey COHEN, M.D., et al., Petitioners, v. David DeYOUNG, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
D. Andrew DeBevoise and Tyler S. McClay, of Bobo, Spicer, Ciotoli, Fulford, Bocchino, DeBevoise & Le Clainche, P.A., Orlando, for petitioners.
No appearance for respondent.
Jeffrey Cohen and Internal Medicine Specialist, P.A., petitioners, ask this court to issue a writ of certiorari to overturn the trial court's order striking an affirmative defense they asserted in a medical malpractice case. Petitioners are the defendants and David DeYoung, (as personal representative of the estate of Shally Ann DeYoung, deceased) the respondent, is the plaintiff in the suit below. We deny the writ.
DeYoung sent Cohen a notice of intent to initiate litigation pursuant to the medical malpractice statute. 1 At the end of the pre-suit period, Cohen requested voluntary binding arbitration to determine damages. See Sec. 766.207, et seq. DeYoung rejected the offer to arbitrate and filed suit.
In their answer, Cohen asserted, as an affirmative defense, that they were entitled to the damages cap set forth in sections 766.207 and 766.209, Florida Statutes. DeYoung asserted that Cohen did not comply with the requirements of the pre-screening suit provisions of the statute so as to entitle them to assert the statutory cap. DeYoung filed a motion for summary judgment or motion to strike affirmative defenses. The trial court struck Cohen's affirmative defense of entitlement to the statutory cap on damages.
Non-final orders striking affirmative defenses can normally be adequately reviewed on direct appeal, and thus they are not subject to certiorari review. Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Corp., 402 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Butterworth v. PERC, 382 So.2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Cohen argues that cases like Pearlstein v. Malunney, 500 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) are precedent for certiorari review in this case. In Pearlstein, the trial court denied a motion to dismiss a complaint which was based on the plaintiff's failure to provide notice of intent to sue prior to filing suit. The court in that case said certiorari review was appropriate because otherwise the defendant would suffer irreparable harm, contrary to a benefit (notice) intended by the Legislature. If the defendant had to go to trial and the plaintiff prevailed, and the judgment were appealed, the appellate court could decide no useful purpose would be served in reversing and remanding to follow the statute. Thus no effective appellate remedy existed.
However, in this case, the affirmative defense asserted is different from the condition precedent to suit involved in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc.
...because the purpose of the presuit screening is to avoid the filing of the lawsuit in the first instance. See Cohen v. DeYoung, 655 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Similarly, the supreme court has recently authorized limited certiorari review of the statutory procedures for amending a compl......
-
Lynn v. Feldmeth, 2D02-3760.
...Inc. v. Meeks, 560 So.2d 778, 780 (Fla.1990); FDIC v. Brodie, 602 So.2d 1358, 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); see also Cohen v. DeYoung, 655 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (distinguishing statutory cap on damages from affirmative defense to underlying Feldmeth also argues that Lynn waived he......
-
Fortune Ins. Co. v. Matos, 94-04005
...plenary appeal. See Pearlstein v. Malunney, 500 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987); Cohen v. DeYoung, 655 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The discovery requested by the plaintiffs is irrelevant to the material issues in their complaint and will not create ......
-
STO Corp. v. Greenhut Constr. Co.
...orders can normally be adequately reviewed on appeal and thus are not subject to certiorari review. See e.g., Cohen v. DeYoung, 655 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ; Manatee County v. Estech Gen. Chems. Corp., 402 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). This court noted in West Florida Regional Medical......