Rubin v. Glick
Opinion
The appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.450(e)1 unconstitutionally denies him, a [818] medical malpractice plaintiff, rights accorded dissimilar plaintiffs and that any non-arbitrary basis for this separate classification disappeared when the Florida Supreme Court in Aldana v. Holub, 381 So.2d 231 (Fla.1980), declared the medical mediation act unconstitutional as violative of due process. Because the appellant did not challenge the constitutionality of the rule in the trial court, we will not entertain his challenge here. Century Village, Inc. v. Wellington, E, F, K, L, H, J, M, & G, Condominium Association, 361 So.2d 128 (Fla.1978); Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970); Granados v. Miller, 369 So.2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Picchione v. Asti, 354 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
419 So. 2d 817 (Rubin v. Glick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.