Plantz v. John, 2D14–5239.
| Decision Date | 18 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D14–5239.,2D14–5239. |
| Citation | 170 So.3d 822 |
| Parties | Scott PLANTZ, M.D., Petitioner, v. Edward JOHN, Individually, and Gary M. Fernald, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Vineshia John, a/k/a Goilene C. Davis, deceased, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Luke C. Lirot of Law Office of Luke Lirot, P.A., Clearwater, and Ann M. Allison of Allison Law Group, Temple Terrace, for Petitioner.
Wil H. Florin and Eric P. Czelusta of Florin Roebig, P.A., Palm Harbor, for Respondents.
Petitioner Scott Plantz, M.D., seeks certiorari review of the circuit court's order sustaining the objections of Edward John and Gary M. Fernald, administrator ad litem of the Estate of Vineshia John, a/k/a Goilene C. Davis, deceased (the Estate), to Dr. Plantz's requests for production and motion to compel seeking information about Richard Dellerson, M.D., the physician who signed the Estate's presuit affidavit. We dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction. Dr. Plantz has a pending motion to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the presuit notification requirements. As part of that challenge he apparently wishes to challenge the sufficiency of the credentials of the doctor who signed the presuit affidavit. Assuming that Dr. Plantz actually has the right to conduct discovery as to the qualifications and background of the physician who merely signed the presuit affidavit and further assuming that the requested information is not privileged, then an order denying Dr. Plantz's pending motion to dismiss might constitute a failure to comply with the statutory presuit screening requirements under sections 766.203 and 766.206, Florida Statutes (2008). If so, Dr. Plantz can challenge the denial of his discovery request following the denial of his pending motion as a violation of the presuit requirements. See Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1133–34 (Fla.2011). In light of the holding and discussion in Williams, we are unconvinced that we have jurisdiction by way of a petition for writ of certiorari to review a nonfinal order denying or limiting discovery as to the sufficiency of the credentials of a presuit affiant prior to a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The Estate filed a medical negligence and wrongful death complaint against Dr. Plantz, an emergency room physician. Dr. Plantz filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending, asserting that the Estate did not comply with the presuit notice requirements of chapter 766. Dr. Plantz specifically alleged that Dr. Dellerson, the affiant to the verified written medical expert opinion attached to the Estate's notice of intent to initiate litigation, does not qualify as an expert because his credentials do not constitute substantial professional experience in providing emergency medical services under section 766.102(9). He also alleged that Dr. Dellerson did not conduct a complete review of available records in forming his opinion corroborating the grounds asserted to support the Estate's claim. See § 766.203(2). Dr. Plantz commenced formal discovery concerning Dr. Dellerson's credentials. After Dr. Dellerson had been twice deposed, apparently once for four hours and once for nine hours, Dr. Plantz requested nonparty hospitals to produce records of Dr. Dellerson's staff status at those facilities. He also requested the Estate's trial counsel to produce all previous notices of intent to initiate litigation containing verified written medical expert opinions signed by Dr. Dellerson. The Estate objected, and Dr. Plantz filed a motion to determine the validity of that objection as well as a motion to compel production. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order sustaining the Estate's objections and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crecy
...the trial court might have been"). Absent such a showing, we must dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari. See Plantz v. John, 170 So. 3d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("If the petitioner fails to satisfy the jurisdictional elements, this court dismisses the petition rather than denying i......
-
Marrero v. Rea
...harm does not exist. See , e.g. , Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, 104 So. 3d 344, 351–52 (Fla. 2012) ; Plantz v. John , 170 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), review denied , 2016 WL 1394470 (Fla. 2016) ; Damsky v. Univ. of Miami , 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; Goslin......
-
Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Herzoff
...(2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal." Plantz v. John, 170 So. 3d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011) ). Of these three elements, the latter two—material injury ......
-
Farrey's Wholesale Hardware Co. v. Coltin Elec. Servs., LLC
...that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ " Shindorf v. Bell, 207 So.3d 371, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Plantz v. John, 170 So.3d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ). Material injury that cannot be corrected on appeal is also called "irreparable harm." Nader v. Fla. Dep't of Highway ......
-
Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases.
...To the contrary, it appears there are many other witnesses who can testify to the same information...." (15) In Plantz v. John, 170 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), the defendant in a medical-malpractice action sought discovery, which the trial court denied, into the credentials of the medica......