22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 50a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2111ELVIInsurance — Discovery — Appeals — Certiorari — Absence of transcript — Affirmance of lower court ruling
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. COMPLETE CARE & REHAB., INC., a/a/o Celestino Elvirez, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 13-285 AP. L.T. Case No. 12-10244 CC 25. June 30, 2014. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari from a decision rendered by the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Patricia Marino-Pedraza, Judge. Counsel: Jonathan S. Brooks, Jonathan S. Brooks, P.A., for Petitioner. Marlene Reiss, Law Offices of Marlene S. Reiss, P.A., for Respondent.
(Before KORVICK, BLOOM, and WALSH, JJ.)
(PER CURIUM.) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) petitions for certiorari relief of the trial court’s non-final Order on in camera inspection in favor of Complete Care & Rehab., Inc. as assignee of Celestino Elveriz (“Complete Care”). In its First Request to Produce, Complete Care requested State Farm produce its entire claim file. The trial court granted a motion to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents detailed in a privilege log. After conducting an in camera review of the claims file in this case, the trial court ordered disclosure of 8 pages of documents in the claims file, but ordered the remainder of the documents protected by the work-product privilege.
The decision below comes to this Court clothed with the presumption of correctness. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). The Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate the error. Id. State Farm provided no transcript of the hearings in this case. In failing to provide a transcript or an acceptable alternative, the Petitioner has failed to establish the legal basis of the trial court’s ruling below — the arguments made, the responses provided, as well as the lower court’s analysis of the information, and accordingly, it has failed to establish that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d at 1152; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. South Miami Health Center a/a/o Haysel Herrera, Nos. 10-249 AP & 11-433 AP, FLWSUPP 2107HHER (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Oct. 23. 2013) [21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 626a].
Accordingly, we deny this petition for certiorari.
Appellate attorneys’ fees are granted to Complete Care pursuant to Florida Statute section 627.428. § 627.428(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). State Farm’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees is denied. This case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. DENIED.
* * *
