Key Points

  • The Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed Halifax Hospital Medical Center's petition to quash an Orange County circuit court order sealing an arbitration award in its dispute with UnitedHealthcare of Florida, Inc.
  • The court held that a petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d) is reviewed under the certiorari standard, which first requires a material injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.
  • Because Halifax is a party with complete access to the sealed award, the court held, it did not show such an injury, and the petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • The court did not reach whether the trial court was right to seal the entire award.

A Florida appeals court on Friday dismissed Halifax Hospital Medical Center's challenge to a trial judge's order sealing an arbitration award in the hospital's dispute with UnitedHealthcare of Florida, Inc. The court ruled that the hospital could read the sealed award and so had not shown the kind of harm that justifies review before the case ends.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal held that Halifax, which does business as Halifax Health, had not demonstrated a "material injury" that could not be fixed in an ordinary appeal at the end of the case. Judge Nardella wrote the opinion, and Judges Stargel and Brownlee concurred. The ruling leaves the award under seal in the Circuit Court of Orange County.

A party seeking review of a sealing order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d) must show an injury the court can address only now, and the panel held that a party with complete access to the sealed document has not made that showing. The court dismissed the petition "for want of jurisdiction" and did not decide whether the trial judge was right to seal the award.

Halifax filed the case in Orange County to confirm a final arbitration award. Medical Center of Deltona, Inc. joined Halifax as a petitioner in the appeal.

During the confirmation case, Halifax and United "disagreed over whether the award should be filed under seal," Judge Nardella wrote. Judge Patricia J. Strowbridge sided with United. "The trial court resolved the disagreement in United's favor and, thus, sealed the entire award," the opinion said.

Halifax then asked the Sixth District for a writ quashing the sealing order. It brought the petition under rule 9.100(d), and the court's caption described the filing as a "Petition for Review of an Order Excluding Press and Public." The opinion does not describe the contents of the award or the dispute behind it. Nor does it recount the arguments either side made about whether the award should be public.

The panel first settled which standard governed the petition. "A petition filed pursuant to rule 9.100(d) is reviewed under the same standard as a petition for writ of certiorari," Judge Nardella wrote.

For that point the court relied on decisions from three other Florida district courts of appeal. It cited Miami Herald Media Co. v. State, a 2017 ruling of the Third District, which the panel described as "applying certiorari standard when reviewing petition filed pursuant to rule 9.100(d)." It also cited Lake v. State, a 2016 Fourth District decision, and Times Publishing Co. v. State, a 2005 Second District decision, for the same proposition.

That standard sets a threshold requirement before a court reaches the merits. Under it, Judge Nardella wrote, "a petitioner must first demonstrate that the interlocutory order will cause them material injury for the remainder of the case that cannot be remedied on direct appeal." For the threshold requirement, the panel cited the Florida Supreme Court's 2022 decision in State v. Garcia.

The panel applied the rule to Halifax in a single sentence. "Here, since Halifax is a party to the action and has complete access to the award despite it being sealed, it has not shown that it will suffer a material injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal," Judge Nardella wrote.

The analysis turned on Halifax's own position in the case. The sealing order kept the award out of the public court file, but it did not keep the award from Halifax. Because Halifax failed the threshold test, the court did not go on to examine the sealing order itself. "Therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction," the opinion concluded.

The opinion left several questions unaddressed. It did not say whether Judge Strowbridge applied the correct test in sealing the award. It did not say whether sealing the entire award, rather than portions of it, was justified. And its material-injury analysis addressed only Halifax's status as a party, without discussing how a petitioner outside the case would fare.

Lawyers for Halifax included Samuel Alexander of Alexander Appellate Law, P.A., in Jacksonville. Lawyers for United included Eric Yesner of GrayRobinson, P.A., in Fort Lauderdale.

The decision is not final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is resolved, according to a notice printed on the opinion. Until then, and absent further relief, Judge Strowbridge's order keeps the award sealed as the confirmation case proceeds in Orange County, under lower court case No. 2025-CA-007690. The panel held that Halifax had not shown harm from the sealing that a direct appeal could not remedy.