“[a] departure from the essential requirements of the law is not mere legal error, but instead, involves a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’ ”). Where the issue before the circuit court involves statutory construction, a writ of certiorari may be . appropriate where the circuit court does not apply the plain and unambiguous language of the relevant statute, resulting in an egregious error. See Nader, 87 So.3d at 723 (“[A] district court may grant a writ of certiorari after determining that the decision is in conflict with the relevant statute, so long as the legal error is also ‘sufficiently egregious or fundamental to fall within the limited scope’ of certiorari jurisdiction.” (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 890 (Fla. 2003))); see also Fernandez, 114 So.3d at 272 (<HOLDING>); Justice Admin. Comm’n v. Peterson, 989 So.2d
holding that when the language of a statute is clear courts should not substitute their judgment for that of congress and should enforce the statute according to its terms recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding that when a statutes terms are clear and unambiguous on their face there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words holding that circuit courts failure to apply statute according to its clear and unambiguous terms amounted to failure to apply clearly established law