PEARSON V. PORTER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003 ARTAE PEARSON, Appellant, ** ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D03-125 PORTER, BROWN, CHITTY & PIRKLE, M.D., P.A. and TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS NORTH SHORE, INC., ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 99-29111 Appellees. ** ** ** Opinion filed October 8, 2003. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Postman, Judge. Joel Kaplan, for appellant. McGrane & Nosich, P.A. and Ruben V. Chavez; Parenti, Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Cortina, P.A. and Gail Leverett Parenti, for appellee. Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and FLETCHER, JJ. PER CURIAM. As this court has previously held that appellant s complaint failed to state a cause of action under Chapter 395, the antidumping statute (see Porter, Brown, Chitty & Pirkle, M.D., P.A. v. Pearson, 793 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)), the trial court did not have discretion to permit the appellant to amend his complaint on remand. See Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Fla. 1981)( [A] procedure which allows an appellate court to rule on the merits of a trial court judgment and then permits the losing party to amend his initial pleadings to assert matters not previously raised renders a mockery of the finality concept in our system of justice. ). We therefore affirm. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.