
    HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a St. Lucie Medical Center, Petitioner, v. Sarah BYERS-McPHEETERS; Bryan McPheeters; Michael Anthony Meloni, Jr., M.D.; J.H. Gatewood Emergency Services, P.A.; Emcare Physician Providers, Inc.; and Em-1 Medical Services, P.A., Respondents.
    No. 4D15-4709.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    June 29, 2016.
    Michael R. D’Lugo and Adam W. Rhys of Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner.
    
      Philip M. Burlington and Adam J. Richardson of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents Sarah Byers-McPheeters and Bryan McPheet-ers.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari relief from a November 16, 2015 order granting Respondents’ motion for leave to assert a punitive damages claim. See § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2015). Certiorari review is available to determine whether a trial court has complied with the procedural requirements of section 768.72, but not to review the sufficiency of the evidence. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla.1995).

' The trial court failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements of section 768.72 when it expressly deferred making a finding on whether the Respondents’ proffer established a reasonable basis for recovery pursuant to section 768.72(3).

Under section 768.72(3), the legislature established a heightened standard for imposing punitive damages on an employer rather than adopting the common law rules of agency and vicarious liability. See Coronado Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. La Corte, 103 So.3d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in allowing Respondents to plead a punitive damages claim without first determining whether the heightened requirements of section 768.72(3) were met. See Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

. We grant the petition and quash the order on review.

Petition granted.

CIKLIN, C.J., MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 
      
      . In ruling on the Respondents' motion, the trial court stated, in part, that “whether or not there is an issue of law regarding Subsection (3) is an issue that I will address at a later time if that's developed.” (Hearing Transcript, p. 45).
     