The Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) petitions this Court to review a non-final order of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting Respondents’ motions to unseal files relevant to two Medicaid provider overpayment complaints filed against them by AHCA and rejecting AHCA’s argument that the files should remain sealed under section 409.913(12), Florida Statutes (2015).1 While we possess the authority to review the non-final action of an ALJ when review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy,2 in this case we do not reach the merits of the petition because, as we explain below, AHCA has failed to establish that the ALJ’s order causes material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal.

“ ‘The scope of review5 for a petition seeking review of a non-final agency action under section 120.68(1) ‘is analogous to, and no broader than the right of review by common law certiorari.’ ” State, Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Murciano, 163 So.3d 662, 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (quoting CNL Resort Hotel, L.P. v. City of Doral, 991 So.2d 417, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)) (some quotation marks omitted); see also Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Fla. Public Serv. Comm’n, 31 Sb.3d 860, 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). It follows, then, that AHCA’s burden is to “demonstrate that the order[ ] on review depart[s] from the essential requirements of the law and *828cause[s] material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal.” Fla. Power & Light, 31 So.3d at 863; accord Murciano, 163 So.3d at 664-65. In evaluating whether AHCA has met its burden, our “first duty is to assess whether [it] has made a prima facie showing that the order creates irreparable harm.” Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). This means that AHCA “bear[s] the burden of demonstrating that review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.” Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc., ex rel. MCI Commc’ns, Inc, v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 960 So.2d 916, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). If AHCA fails to make this prima facie showing of irreparable harm, its petition must be dismissed “for lack of jurisdiction.” Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. AFO Imaging, Inc., 46 So.3d 140, 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see also Cruz v. Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de Puerto Rico, Inc., 76 So.3d 394, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding “[a]s a jurisdictional prerequisite to reviewing the merits of the certiorari petition, we must determine whether [the petitioners] have demonstrated irreparable harm”).

From a practical standpoint, this standard requires the petition to dearly reflect how the potential “harm is incurable” by a final appeal. Bared & Co., Inc, v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153,157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Without this critical component, we lack “the power to exercise discretion” either to grant or withhold review of the non-final order. Id.

Here, AHCA has failed to allege how the order caused it material injury that cannot be remedied on a final appeal. Because there is no prima facie showing of irreparable harm, AHCA is not entitled to our evaluation of the non-final agency order. See Robles v. Baptist Health S. Fla., Inc., 197 So.3d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So.3d 146, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“If a petition fails to make a threshold showing of irreparable harm, this Court will dismiss the petition.”) (citation omitted); Royal Marble, Inc. v. Innovative Flooring & Stonecrafters of SWF, Inc., 932 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Because Royal Marble has failed to allege irreparable harm, we dismiss the petition”).

Therefore, the petition for review of non-final agency action is DISMISSED.

concurring.

I agree that AHCA has not alleged or established “irreparable harm.” But, even if it had done so, I would deny the petition for review because the challenged order does not depart from the essential requirements of law.

The underlying cases at the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) are run-of-the-mill Medicaid program integrity (MPI) overpayment cases—not abuse cases as AHCA contends3—and the public *829records exemption in section 409.913(12) plainly does not extend to overpayment cases. Compare § 409.913(12), Fla. Stat. (limiting the scope of the public records exemption to cases involving allegations of “fraud, abuse, or neglect”) with § 409.913(2), Fla. Stat. (authorizing the agency to audit Medicaid providers to determine “possible fraud, abuse, overpayment, or recipient neglect”) (emphasis added). Moreover, even if these were abuse cases as AHCA contends, section 409.913(12) would not justify sealing the entire DOAH case file in these cases.4

DOAH’s case files are, without question, public records because DOAH is a state agency and the case files are comprised of documents prepared by DOAH (e.g., notices and orders issued by the ALJ) and received by DOAH (e.g., agency referrals, motions and other papers filed by the parties, exhibits and other evidence presented at the final hearing) in the course of official proceedings undér Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, or another law. See § 119.011(12), Fla. Stat. (defining “public records” to include documents and other material “made or received pursuant to law ... in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency”). Accordingly, DOAH’s case files must be open to the public for inspection and copying, unless there is a specific statute exempting the file from public disclosure. See §§ 119.01(1), 119.07(1), Fla. Stat.; Wait v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 372 So.2d 420, 425 (Fla. 1979) (explaining that the Public Records Law exempts from public disclosure “only those public records that are provided by statutory law to be confidential or which are expressly exempted by general or special law”).'

It is the prerogative of the Legislature, not DOAH or the referring agency, to determine which, if any, DOAH case files are entirely exempt from public disclosure. The Legislature has exempted the entire case file from public disclosure in certain types of DOAH cases, see, ~ e.g., § 1003.57(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (requiring hearings in special education cases to be conducted by DOAH ALJs and providing that “[a]ny records created as a result of such hearings are confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1)”), but there is no such blanket public records exemption for' MPI case files at DOAH.

*830Where, as here, there is no statute exempting the entire DOAH case file from the Public Records Law, every document in the case file is subject to public disclosure unless a specific exemption applies to the document. This does not mean that every document in the case file must be available on the online docket on DOAH’s website,5 but if the document is not available online, DOAH must ensure that the public has. reasonable access to the document unless the document is subject to a public records exemption. See § 119.01(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (“Automation of public records must not erode the right of access to those records. As each agency increases its use of and dependence on electronic recordkeeping, each agency must provide • reasonable public access to records electronically maintained and must ensure that exempt or confidential records are not disclosed except as otherwise permitted by law.”). Moreover, if an exemption applies to only a portion of a document—or only certain information in the document—the non-exempt portion of the document is subject to public disclosure. See § 119.07(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (“A person who has custody of a public record who asserts that an exemption applies to a part of such record shall redact that portion of the record to which an exemption has been asserted and validly applies, and such person shall produce the remainder of such record for inspection and copying.”).

Section 409.913(12), by its clear and unambiguous language, exempts from public disclosure only (1) the complaint against a Medicaid provider relating to an allegation of fraud, abuse or neglect, and (2) all information' obtained pursuant to AHCA’s investigation of such a complaint.6 In a case alleging fraud, abuse, or neglect, this exemption likely encompasses the FAR because that document represents the culmination of AHCA’s investigation of the provider and likely contains—or at least refers to—information obtained pursuant to the investigation. However, the DOAH case file in an MPI case is comprised of more than the FAR and other documents containing information obtained pursuant to AHCA’s investigation. Indeed, most of the documents in the case file—e.g., notices of hearing, routine motions, procedural orders—are not likely to contain or even refer to such information.

Although it may be more expedient to seal the entire DOAH case file in an MPI case, the Public Records Law does not allow the entire file to be shielded from the public simply because it might be cumbersome to seal or redact only the exempt portions of the file. Instead, the Public Records Law contemplates precisely what is mandáted by the Initial Order entered *831in this case (and nearly every other DOAH case): the party filing a document with DOAH that contains confidential information has the obligation to redact the confidential information from the document before it is filed. If, however, the entire document is exempt from public disclosure, or if the confidential information in the document is necessary for disposition of the case, the party filing the document can seek leave to file the document under seal with a citation to the applicable statute containing the public records exemption. This document-by-document approach is similar to the procedure used to protect confidential information in judicial records, see Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(2), 2.425, 2.515(a)(4), and it strikes the necessary and appropriate balance between the public’s right of access to DOAH’s case files in MPI cases and the need to protect the confidentiality of the medical records that will .necessarily become part of these case files.

With these additional observations, I concur in the majority opinion.