 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wolford v. Boone12/2/2005
der, Boone filed a motion in the trial court to set an evidentiary hearing, seeking an opportunity to present further evidence justifying the trial court's earlier denial order. Florida Hospital joined in this motion. The Wolfords filed a motion seeking entry of an order on the motion to strike the respondents' pleadings and opposed the motion for evidentiary hearing. They contend that our order required only that a new order be entered but did not allow that additional evidence be heard. The Wolfords also assert that, having argued against an evidentiary hearing in opposing the motion for clarification, Boone and Florida Hospital had belatedly changed their position.
A hearing was apparently held on the motion to set evidentiary hearing and motion for entry of order striking the respondents' pleadings during which the trial court verbally denied the motion for an evidentiary hearing and reserved ruling on the motion to strike.
After three months with no order forthcoming, the Wolfords filed a motion for case status. The trial court responded by vacating its earlier order denying an evidentiary hearing and ordering the parties to coordinate and schedule an evidentiary hearing. The Wolfords now seek an extraordinary writ to enforce the mandate of this court, to quash the lower court's order for an evidentiary hearing and to compel the trial court to enter an order on the motion to strike.
We think it is plain that our prior opinion, especially as clarified, contemplated only an amended order containing findings of fact to explain and support the trial court's decision, not a new evidentiary hearing. There was a complete record of the proceedings below and the judge should simply be able to identify what facts and evidence contained within the record had persuaded her to exercise her discretion to excuse the health care providers' conduct, or if unable to do so, to issue a different ruling. Regrettably, in ordering a new evidentiary hearing after first declining to do so, the trial court again gave no reason. If the trial court had explained why the requirement of findings of fact articulated in Wolford I would require a new hearing, it is likely we would have supported that decision. Having been given no reason to depart from the procedure ordered in Wolford I, however, the trial court shall either support its prior decision with findings of fact, or if unable to do so, make a different decision. It is so ordered.
PETITION GRANTED.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN and SAWAYA , JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|