LEON MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. v. JOSE DURAN, etc.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 20, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1521
Lower Tribunal No. 18-39190
________________
Leon Medical Centers, Inc., et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
Jose Duran, etc.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Carlos Guzman, Judge.
Cole, Scott & Kissane, Michael E. Brand, Alan St. Louis and Cody
German; Easley Appellate Practice, PLLC and Dorothy F. Easley, for
petitioners.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., and Adam S. Hecht
and F. Gregory Barnhart (West Palm Beach); Davis Goldman, PLLC and
Aaron P. Davis and Daniel B. Allison and Kimberly Cook; Harris Appeals,
P.A., and Andrew A. Harris and Grace Mackey Streicher (Palm Beach
Gardens), for respondent.
Before EMAS, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, defendants in the wrongful death lawsuit below, seek
certiorari relief from the trial court’s order granting Respondent’s motion to
amend to add a claim for punitive damages under section 768.72, Florida
Statutes (2018). In determining whether a trial court departed from the
essential requirements of the law in granting a motion to amend a complaint
to add a claim for punitive damages, our review is limited to whether the trial
court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72. Levin v.
Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); accord Robins v.
Colombo, 253 So. 3d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “Certiorari is not available
to review a determination that there is a reasonable showing by evidence in
the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable
basis for recovery of such damages.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658
So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995). “Moreover, this court is not permitted to reweigh
a trial court’s finding of a sufficient evidentiary basis for a punitive damages
claim, and ‘such a finding could not be disturbed, or even evaluated on
certiorari review.’” Robins, 253 So. 3d at 96 (quoting Espirito Santo Bank v.
Rego, 990 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). Thus, the scope of our
certiorari review is confined to whether “Respondent proffered evidence in
support of his punitive damages claim and, after a hearing, the trial court
2
entered an order finding the proffer to be sufficient to support the claim.” E.R.
Truck & Equip. Corp. v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Applying our narrow scope of review, we conclude that the trial court
complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 in granting
Respondent’s motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages, and we
deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petition denied.
3