section 766.316 satisfy the notice requirements in Florida

1997We hold that health care providers who have a reasonable opportunity to give notice and fail to give predelivery notice under section 766.316, will lose their NICA exclusivity regardless of whether the circumstances precluded the patient making an effective choice of provider at the time the *51 notice was provided. [1] See, Levine v. Dade County School Board, 442 So.2d 210, 213 (Fla.1983)("Consideration of the efficacy of or need for the notice requirement is a matter wholly within the legislative domain.").

1997We hold that health care providers who have a reasonable opportunity to give notice and fail to give predelivery notice under section 766.316, will lose their NICA exclusivity regardless of whether the circumstances precluded the patient making an effective choice of provider at the time the notice was provided. 1 See, Levine v. Dade County School Board, 442 So.2d 210, 213 (Fla.1983)(“Consideration of the efficacy of or need for the notice requirement is a matter wholly within the legislative domain.”).

2024See id. (explaining that compliance with the notice requirement of section 766.316 “is a condition precedent to NICA’s 19 exclusivity”); see also Galen of Fla., Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1997) (holding “that as a condition precedent to invoking the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan as a patient’s exclusive remedy, health care providers must, when practicable, give their obstetrical patients notice of their participation in the plan a reasonable time prior to delivery”).

2024See id. (explaining that compliance with the notice requirement of section 766.316 “is a condition precedent to NICA’s 19 exclusivity”); see also Galen of Fla., Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1997) (holding “that as a condition precedent to invoking the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan as a patient’s exclusive remedy, health care providers must, when practicable, give their obstetrical patients notice of their participation in the plan a reasonable time prior to delivery”).

2026See id. (citing § 766.304, Fla. Stat.).

2024See id. (explaining that compliance with the notice requirement of section 766.316 “is a condition precedent to NICA’s 19 exclusivity”); see also Galen of Fla., Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1997) (holding “that as a condition precedent to invoking the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan as a patient’s exclusive remedy, health care providers must, when practicable, give their obstetrical patients notice of their participation in the plan a reasonable time prior to delivery”).

2024See id. (explaining that compliance with the notice requirement of section 766.316 “is a condition precedent to NICA’s 19 exclusivity”); see also Galen of Fla., Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1997) (holding “that as a condition precedent to invoking the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan as a patient’s exclusive remedy, health care providers must, when practicable, give their obstetrical patients notice of their participation in the plan a reasonable time prior to delivery”).

2024The court held that “in order to satisfy the notice requirements of section 766.316, Florida Statutes (1997), both participating physicians and hospitals with participating physicians on staff must provide obstetrical patients with notice of their participation in the plan.” Id. at 994-95.

2024Appellant also argues that Jackson conflicts with the Florida Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, in which the court answered in the negative the certified question of whether “a physician’s predelivery notice to his or her patient of the [NICA] plan and his or her participation in the plan satisfy the notice requirements of section 766.316 . . . if the hospital where the delivery takes place fails to provide notice of any kind.” 29 So. 3d at 994 .