24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 299a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2404BROOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Stay — PIP case is stayed to allow time for district court of appeal to rule on same issue of statutory interpretation in pending appeal
BROOKSVILLE CHIROPRACTIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Hernando County. Case No. 2015SC1415. May 20, 2016. Donald M. McCathran, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Michael R. Prince, Ellis, Ged & Bodden, P.A., Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Anthony J. Parrino, Reynolds Parrino Spano & Shadwick, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on May 4, 2016, for a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay, and the Court having reviewed the motion, heard argument of counsel, and having reviewed the supplemental memorandums and case law filed by both parties, it is hereby;
ORDERED AND ADJUGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the proceedings is granted in part. The Court shall enter a stay until July 30, 2016, and will then readdress whether the stay shall remain in place. The Court notes the Fourth District Court of Appeal has scheduled oral argument for July 12, 2016, in the Medical Center of Palm Beaches d/b/a Central Palm Beach Physicians & Urgent Care, Inc. v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. From a review of the docket all briefing has been completed.
The Court has broad discretion in imposing a stay; however, this broad discretion is not without limits as there are appellate remedies if the delay in the proceedings constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law causing material injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. Shoemaker v. State Farm, 890 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D173a]. The undersigned does not take the decision to impose this stay, which will undoubtedly delay the case, lightly. The undersigned generally does not allow delays in cases and is often the force pushing both criminal and civil cases, especially Personal Injury Protection (PIP) cases, toward a resolution. With this said, it is always the undersigned’s goal to make a correct legal decision to ensure justice prevails. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court grants the temporary stay.
The facts of Shoemaker, which reversed the trial court’s imposition of a stay pending an appeal in an unrelated case, are distinguishable from the current case. In Shoemaker, it was the defendant insurance company who requested the stay with the plaintiff, a 74 year old individual with cancer seeking monetary benefits in Circuit Court (implying to the undersigned the value of the benefits being sought were in excess of $15,000.00), objecting. In the current case it is Plaintiff, an incorporated medical provider seeking between $501.00 and $2,500.00, from a large insurance company. Therefore, the concern of delay for an elderly, ill plaintiff seeking significant monetary benefits is not present. Although the Court understands Defendant’s expressed concern regarding a delay, it is not the same type of concern expressed in Shoemaker.
Furthermore, in Shoemaker, the appellate court noted the unrelated appellate case did not involve an identical dispositive issue. In the current case, there does not appear to be a dispute between the parties that the issue on appeal in the Fourth District Court of Appeal is the same issue as the undersigned will be required to address. This dispositive issue will be a legal interpretation of the language of the PIP statute. Neither party was able to provide the Court with a current opinion of any District Court of Appeal addressing this issue; therefore, the issue before the Fourth District Court of Appeal appears to be one of first impression. Defendant devoted half of their memorandum of law writing that this issue was a matter of “Great Public Importance.” If this is a matter of “Great Public Importance” as Defendant alleges, the wise decision would be to allow the learned judges of the Fourth District Court of Appeal to rule upon the issue and provide guidance to the County Court. Allowing the Fourth District Court of Appeal to rule upon the interpretation of the statute would not foreclose upon any appellate rights of either Plaintiff or Defendant. The undersigned would still have to enter a ruling upon any motion filed by Plaintiff or Defendant. The written ruling would be based upon all binding and persuasive authority. The non-prevailing party would then have the opportunity to file an appeal to the Fifth Judicial Circuit Appellate Division or request the County Court to certify the matter as one of “Great Public Importance” so that the appeal is directly to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
Based upon all of the above, the Court exercises this discretion to enter a stay in the above styled cause until July 30, 2016, when the Court will readdress when an additional stay shall be entered. Based upon the above, the Court finds there is not a departure from the essential requirements of law. Based upon the above, the Court finds there is no undue prejudice to either side by the entry of this Order.
The hearing on any Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for June 1, 2016, is canceled. The Calendar Call scheduled for June 14, 2016, is canceled. The trial scheduled for the week of June 20, 2016, is canceled.