Opposition Brief — Renee D. Bell, Petitioner v. Orlando Health, Inc., dba Winnie Palmer Hospital

Docket No. 18-6523

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RENEE D. BELL,

Petitioner,

V

ORLANDO HEALTH, INC.,

D/B/A WINNIE PALMER HOSPITAL

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Francis E. Pierce, III

Florida Bar No. 270921

Mateer &Harbert, P.A.

225 East Robinson Street

Suite 600

Orlando, FL 32801

(407)425-9044

(407)423-2016

(pierce@mateerharbert.com

Counsel for Respondent

Orlando Health, Inc.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

There is no corporation that owns 10% or more of the stock of Orlando

Health, Inc.

RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Respondent Orlando Health, Inc. argues that there is no jurisdiction for this.

Court to entertain this Petition for Writ of Certiorari pursuant to Sup. Ct. Rule 10.

There are no compelling reasons to support a writ of certiorari presented by the

appellate orders of Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal or Florida's Supreme

Court. There is no decision by Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal or Florida's

Supreme Court that decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts

with another state court of last resort or a United States Court of appeals. Sup. Ct.

Rule 10(b). There is no decision by Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal or

Florida's Supreme Court that decided an important question of federal Iaw that has

not been, but should be, settled by the United States Supreme Court or decided an

important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the

United States Supreme Court. Sup. Ct. Rule 10(c). There is no decision of Florida's

Fifth District Court of Appeal or Florida's Supreme Court that consists of erroneous

factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law. Sup. Ct. Rule

10.

2

RESPONDENT'S RESTATEMENT OF THE CASE

The narrow issue presented by Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari is whether a

state appellate court may issue a final appellate order without issuing a written

opinion.

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal of

a trial court order from Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit Court dated January 30,

2018, which granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (App. 1-3). On March 15, 2018,

Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an Order requiring Petitioner to show

cause why her appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction "...inasmuch

as the Notice of Appeal, filed January 29, 2018, was filed more than thirty days

from the November 27, 2017, rendition date of the order from which Appellant seeks

to appeal". (App. 4). Thereafter, on March 27, 2018, Florida's Fifth District Court

of Appeal issued an Order dismissing Petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

(App . 5) .

On April 26, 2018, Florida's Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's appeal for

lack of jurisdiction as well, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review

unelaborated decisions from a district court of appeal. (App. 6).

This appeal ensued.

ARGUMENT

State and federal law clearly holds that appellate courts may issue appellate

orders without issuing a written opinion. As such, there is no certiorari jurisdiction

3

presented by Petitioner's Writ. Therefore, Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari should be

denied.

Both state and federal authorities hold that appellate courts may review and

decide appeals without issuing a written opinion in each case. In R. J. Reynolds

Tobacco Co. v Kenyon, 882 So.2d 986, 988 — 989 (Fla. 2004), the Florida Supreme

Court notes that while Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) permits a party

to an appeal to request a written opinion as part of a motion for rehearing, nothing

in that rule mandates that a Florida district court of appeal must issue a written

opinion. The Florida Supreme Court in R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, Co. goes on in that

opinion to further state that Florida's District Courts have the inherent discretion

to determine whether it will issue a written opinion.

Various Federal Circuit Courts have specific rules for those circuits which

permit the affirmance or enforcement of judgments without opinions after review by

appellate courts. U. S. Ct. of App. 5th Cir. Rule 47.6 Fed. Cir. R. Rule 36; U. S. Ct.

8t~ Cir. Rule 47B. In Fu~.man v U.S., 720 F.2d 263, 264, (2d Cir. 1983), the Second

Circuit Court of Appeals states that there is no requirement in law that a federal

appellate court's decision be accompanied by a written opinion.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari does not invoke this Court's

jurisdiction. The Petition does not raise any issue identified in Sup. Ct. Rule 10

which would conform to the Rules of this Court for jurisdiction over this writ.l

Respondent Orlando Health, Inc. therefore respectfully requests this Court deny

Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted

._.-Francis E. Pierce, III

Florida Bar No. 270921

Mateer &Harbert, P.A.

225 East Robinson Street

Suite 600

Orlando, FL 32801

(407)425-9044

(407)423-2016

fpierceGmateerharbert.com

Counsel for Respondent

Orlando Health, Inc.

' This court has previously dismissed an appeal by this Petitioner against this Respondent

concerning the same appellate issue, i.e. lack of jurisdiction. See Renee D. Bell v. PLMLimited

Partnership, et al., 17A561~ 17-9064.

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been served by United States

Mail, postage prepaid and by electronic mail to~ Ms. Renee Bell, P. O. Box 91,

Winter Park, FL, 32790, rbclear.rb@~mail.com, this ~v -~ day of ivov~r ~2.

~~II~:~

Francis E. Pierce, III

Florida Bar No. 270921

Mateer &Harbert, P.A.

225 East Robinson Street

Suite 600

Orlando, FL 32801

(407)425-9044

(467)423-2016

~ierce~mateerharbert.com

Attorney for Respondent

Orlando Health, Inc.

4821-1563-0720, v. 1

,