Torts — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by allowing plaintiffs to plead punitive damages claim without first determining whether plaintiffs’ proffer established reasonable basis for recovery pursuant to section 768.72(3)

Torts
— Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law
by allowing plaintiffs to plead punitive damages claim without first
determining whether plaintiffs’ proffer established reasonable basis for
recovery pursuant to section 768.72(3), which established a heightened standard
for imposing punitive damages on an employer

HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a ST. LUCIE MEDICAL
CENTER, Petitioner, v. SARAH BYERS-MCPHEETERS; BRYAN MCPHEETERS; MICHAEL
ANTHONY MELONI, JR., M.D.; J.H. GATEWOOD EMERGENCY SERVICES, P.A.; EMCARE
PHYSICIAN PROVIDERS, INC.; and EM-1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.A., Respondents. 4th
District. Case No. 4D15-4709. June 29, 2016. Petition for writ of certiorari to
the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Janet
Carney Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562011CA003154. Counsel: Michael R. D’Lugo and
Adam W. Rhys of Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for
petitioner. Philip M. Burlington and Adam J. Richardson of Burlington &
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents Sarah ByersMcPheeters and
Bryan McPheeters.

(PER CURIAM.) Petitioner seeks certiorari relief from a
November 16, 2015 order granting Respondents’ motion for leave to assert a
punitive damages claim. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). Certiorari
review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the
procedural requirements of section 768.72, but not to review the sufficiency of
the evidence. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla.
1995).

The trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural
requirements of section 768.72 when it expressly deferred making a finding on
whether the Respondents’ proffer established a reasonable basis for recovery
pursuant to section 768.72(3).1

Under section 768.72(3), the legislature established a
heightened standard for imposing punitive damages on an employer rather than
adopting the common law rules of agency and vicarious liability. See
Coronado Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. La Corte, 103 So. 3d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA
2012).

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of
the law in allowing Respondents to plead a punitive damages claim without first
determining whether the heightened requirements of section 768.72(3) were met. See
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

We grant the petition and quash the order on review. Petition
granted. (CIKLIN, C.J., MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1In ruling on the Respondents’ motion,
the trial court stated, in part, that “whether or not there is an issue of law
regarding Subsection (3) is an issue that I will address at a later time if
that’s developed.” (Hearing Transcript, p. 45).

* *
*