Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Rodriguez

299 So.3d 477

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners,

v.Alana RODRIGUEZ, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 3D19-1842

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 26, 2020

Boyd Richards Parker Colonnelli, and Elaine D. Walter, Yvette R. Lavelle, and Gissell Jorge, for petitioners.

Simon Schindler & Sandberg LLP, and Sherryll Martens Dunaj, for Nominal Respondent Karen Walker ; Bram J. Gechtman ; Marjorie Gadarian Graham (Palm Beach Gardens), for respondent Alana Rodriguez.

Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.

Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. ("Sedgwick"), North Shore Medical Center d/b/a Florida Medical Center ("FMC"), and Amy Wilds ("Wilds") petition this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash, in part, the trial court's August 26, 2019 Order granting Respondent Alana Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") leave to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.

Florida law is well-settled on this point:

appellate courts do have certiorari jurisdiction to review whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but do not have certiorari jurisdiction to review a decision of a trial judge granting leave to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages when the trial judge has followed the procedural requirements of section 768.72. 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.

Ross Dress For Less Va., Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 1995) ); see, e.g., Cat Cay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("Review of an order granting a motion to amend to add a punitive damages claim requires us to consider whether a trial judge has conformed with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 ..., but the scope of review is not so broad as to encompass review of the sufficiency of the evidence considered in that inquiry." (citations and quotations omitted)).

In this case, we conclude that the procedural requirements of the statute were followed. See Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 547-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (concluding that the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of the statute because the plaintiff's motion to amend detailed his claim, plaintiff proffered evidence to support his punitive damages claim and, after a hearing, the trial court applied the correct law and entered an order finding the proffer to be sufficient to support the claim).

Because we are bound by Globe, we cannot review the petitioners' claims, which go beyond a determination of whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, and, instead, invite this Court to address the sufficiency of the evidence or the reasonableness of the trial court's determination.¹

Petition...