Did the trial court deny Petitioner's due-process rights when it refused to allow testimony or review evidence presented in support of Petitioner's assertion that the medical-malpractice complaint had been timely filed within the statute-of-limitations?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This case involves a medical malpractice action that was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court for failure to file the complaint within the statute of limitations. The trial court denied Petitioner the opportunity to give testimony, call witnesses or present evidence in support of Petitioner’s complaint (R. 134-135). The trial court dismissed the case based on the mere statement of Respondents’ attorney that “...it’s our position that this matter has been filed outside of the applicable limitations period...” (R. 134). Respondents’ attorney offered no evidence, testimony or case law to support the assertion that the medical malpractice complaint had been filed outside the statute of limitations. A timely appeal was filed with the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal,’ dismissed with a Per Curiam Affirmed decision. A timely motion for written opinion, rehearing or rehearing en banc was filed and denied. Petitioner timely filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Florida, denied for absence of a written opinion from the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal. 1. Did the trial court deny Petitioner’s due process rights, guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and under Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, when it refused to allow testimony or review evidence presented in support of Petitioner’s assertion that the medical malpractice complaint had been timely filed within the statute of limitations? ; i 2. Why has the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal entered a decision in direct conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida and all other Florida District Courts of Appeal on the statute of limitations and Petitioner’s due process rights? 3. Did the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal sanction the trial court’s departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by affirming the trial court’s decision without a written opinion, violate Petitioner’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and deny Petitioner access to the courts under Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the State of Florida? ii PARTIES TO PROCEEDING 1. Zachary Q. Wicks is the Petitioner 2. Janice E. Robertson-Wicks is an appellant/plaintiff in the lower courts 3. Jon H. Radnothy, DO is a Respondent 4. Victoria Henriquez, PA-Cis a Respondent 5. Radnothy-Perry Orthopedic Center, PA is a Respondent iii