Opinion
No. 3D20-1415
12-23-2020
OPEN MRI OF MIAMI-DADE, LTD. a/a/o Deogracia Barreras, Petitioner, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Douglas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein ; Buchalter, Hoffman & Dorchak, and Kenneth J. Dorchak, for petitioner. Michael J. Neimand, for respondent.
Douglas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein ; Buchalter, Hoffman & Dorchak, and Kenneth J. Dorchak, for petitioner.
Michael J. Neimand, for respondent.
Before EMAS, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Open MRI of Miami-Dade, Ltd. seeks second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court appellate decision reversing and remanding an order of the county court, which entered final summary judgment against United Automobile Insurance Company in an action for personal injury protection ("PIP") benefits. Open MRI argues the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, legally erred in reversing county court's order. Because our scope of review is limited to whether the circuit court afforded the parties procedural due process and applied the correct law, and we find that it did, we deny the petition.
"The decision in this case is driven by the narrow scope of second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CC Chiropractic, LLC, 245 So. 3d 755, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). "[W]hen a district court considers a petition for second-tier certiorari review, the ‘inquiry is limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and whether the circuit court applied the correct law,’ or, as otherwise stated, departed from the essential requirements of law." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CEDA Health of Hialeah, LLC, 300 So. 3d 748, 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010) ). Second-tier certiorari "cannot be used to grant a second appeal to correct the existence of mere legal error." Id. (quoting Custer, 62 So. 3d at 1093 ).
Open MRI does not argue that it was not afforded procedural due process but attempts to seek a second appeal to correct what amounts to mere legal error. Based on the record before us, we conclude the circuit court applied the correct law in reviewing county court's order and did not depart from any essential requirement of law.
Petition denied.