Oenbrink v. Schiegner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oenbrink v. Schiegner

645 So. 2d 167, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11320, 1994 WL 655900

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 1994

DocketNos. 94-2504, 94-2531

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 645 So. 2d 167 (Oenbrink v. Schiegner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oenbrink v. Schiegner, 645 So. 2d 167, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11320, 1994 WL 655900 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for writ of certiorari in this medical malpractice action in which the Petitioners/Defendants seek review of pretrial orders holding that Plaintiffs have complied with the presuit screening requirements of section 766, Florida Statutes.

We recognize that certiorari review may be used to challenge an order that denies a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the statutory presuit notice requirements, [168]*168provided that there is a demonstrable irreparable injury and a departure from the essential requirements of law, even though certiorari is ordinarily not available to review an order denying a motion to dismiss under Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987). See Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Barber, 638 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Miami Physical Therapy Assoc., Inc. v. Savage, 632 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Southern Neurosurgical Assoc., P.A. v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, here Petitioners have failed to demonstrate such a departure from the essential requirements of law. Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied sub nom. Physicians Protective Trust Fund v. Brooker, 624 So.2d 267 (Fla.1993); Williams v. Powers, 619 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Wolfsen v. Applegate, 619 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

The petition is denied.

STONE, POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition for writ of certiorari in this medical malpractice action in which the Petitioners/Defendants seek review of pretrial orders holding that Plaintiffs have complied with the presuit screening requirements of section 766, Florida Statutes.

We recognize that certiorari review may be used to challenge an order that denies a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the statutory presuit notice requirements, [168]*168provided that there is a demonstrable irreparable injury and a departure from the essential requirements of law, even though certiorari is ordinarily not available to review an order denying a motion to dismiss under Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987). See Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Barber, 638 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Miami Physical Therapy Assoc., Inc. v. Savage, 632 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Southern Neurosurgical Assoc., P.A. v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, here Petitioners have failed to demonstrate such a departure from the essential requirements of law. Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So.2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied sub nom. Physicians Protective Trust Fund v. Brooker, 624 So.2d 267 (Fla.1993); Williams v. Powers, 619 So.2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Wolfsen v. Applegate, 619 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

The petition is denied.

STONE, POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 So. 2d 167, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11320, 1994 WL 655900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oenbrink-v-schiegner-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack