ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL ALTAMONTE AND WILLIAM HUETHER, III, M.D. vs SALLY MACHALEK AND MATTHEW APTER, M.D.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 16, 2022
• Docket: 22-1898
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL ALTAMONTE AND WILLIAM HUETHER, III, M.D.,

Petitioners,

v. Case No. 5D22-1898 LT Case No. 2019-CA-000231

SALLY MACHALEK AND MATTHEW APTER, M.D.,

Respondents. ________________________________/

Opinion filed December 16, 2022

Petition for Certiorari Review of Orders from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Michael J. Rudisill, Judge.

Craig S. Foels, Christian P. Trowbridge, and Dinelia A. Concepcion, of Estes, Ingram, Foels & Gibbs, P.A., Maitland, for Petitioners.

Andres I. Beregovich, of The Beregovich Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent, Sally Machalek. No Appearance for Other Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., d/b/a Florida

Hospital Altamonte and William Huether, III, M.D., who are defendants in a

medical malpractice action brought against them by Respondent, Sally

Machalek, jointly seek certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of their

respective motions to dismiss Machalek’s first amended complaint.

Petitioners asserted in their motions that Machalek’s complaint should be

dismissed because she had failed to comply with certain statutory presuit

requirements applicable to medical malpractice actions brought under

chapter 766, Florida Statutes. While Petitioners raise several arguments

here for relief, we need only briefly address one.

Our court has recently explained that a trial court departs from the

essential requirements of the law, thus justifying certiorari relief, when it

denies a defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s medical malpractice

action without making “express findings” as to whether the plaintiff has

complied with the statutory presuit requirements. Dontineni v. Sanderson,

346 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (citing Osceola Reg’l Hosp. v.

Calzada, 246 So. 3d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)); see also PP

Transition, LP v. Munson, 232 So. 3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (granting

2 certiorari relief where the trial court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss

without making express findings as to whether the plaintiffs complied with

presuit investigation requirements applicable to medical malpractice cases).

The trial court’s separate, contemporaneously-entered, virtually identical

unelaborated orders denying Petitioners’ respective motions to dismiss do

not comply with this requirement.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the orders

under review, and remand for the trial court to make the requisite express

findings as to whether Machalek complied with chapter 766’s presuit

requirements. 1

PETITION GRANTED; ORDERS QUASHED; REMANDED for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

1 We find it unnecessary to reach and therefore have taken no present position on the merits of any of the other arguments raised by Petitioners in their petition.