Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Neurology Partners, P.A., D/B/A EMAS Spine & Brain Specialists A/A/O Roderick A. Williams, 18-1350 (2018)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 18-1350 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D18-1350 _ PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, P.A., D/B/A EMAS SPINE & BRAIN SPECIALISTS A/A/O RODERICK A. WILLIAMS, Respondent. _ Petition for Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction. August 24, 2018 PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 , 1093 (Fla. 2010) (emphasizing that “certiorari cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal
More
          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                          No. 1D18-1350
                  _____________________________

PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS
INSURANCE COMPANY,

    Petitioner,

    v.

NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, P.A.,
D/B/A EMAS SPINE & BRAIN
SPECIALISTS A/A/O RODERICK A.
WILLIAMS,

    Respondent.
                  _____________________________


Petition for Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.


                         August 24, 2018


PER CURIAM.

       DISMISSED. See Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto Ins. Co., 
62 So. 3d 1086
, 1093 (Fla. 2010) (emphasizing that “certiorari cannot
be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere
legal error” and explaining that “a circuit court appellate decision
made according to the forms of law and the rules prescribed for
rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to
what the law is as applied to facts, is not a departure from the
essential requirements of law remediable by certiorari”)(emphasis
in original); State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. CC Chiropractic, LLC,

2018 WL 1315076
, at *2 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 14, 2018)
(discussing the limitations on second-tier certiorari review and
noting that “[a] denial of discretionary second-tier certiorari
review should not be construed to mean that we approve of the
underlying decisions”).

WETHERELL, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Michael C. Clarke, Betsy Ellwanger Gallagher, and Danielle M.
Lutyk of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.

Adam Saben of Shuster & Saben, LLC, Jacksonville, for
Respondent.




                               2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer