6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nardone v. Reynoldsred2 sentences2000To do so would make the reference to `knowledge of the negligent act' in the Nardone rule redundant and would result in an inordinate extension of the statute." 618 So.2d at 181 ; see also Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976). 2000To do so would make the reference to `knowledge of the negligent act' in the Nardone rule redundant and would result in an inordinate extension of the statute." 618 So.2d at 181 ; see also Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976). | 2 | 3 |
Norsworthy v. HOLMES REG. MED. CTR., INC.green2 sentences2000In Tanner , we recognized that a strict application of the Nardone rule can sometimes lead to harsh results, especially in cases where "there is nothing about an injury that would communicate to a reasonable lay person that the injury is more likely the result of some failure of medical care than a natural occurrence that can arise in *939 the absence of medical negligence." Norsworthy v. Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., 598 So.2d 105, 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), approved sub nom. 2000In Tanner , we recognized that a strict application of the Nardone rule can sometimes lead to harsh results, especially in cases where "there is nothing about an injury that would communicate to a reasonable lay person that the injury is more likely the result of some failure of medical care than a natural occurrence that can arise in *939 the absence of medical negligence." Norsworthy v. Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., 598 So.2d 105, 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), approved sub nom. | 2 | 2 |
Tanner v. Hartoggreen2 sentences2008Analysis A. Statute of Limitations In Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So.2d 177 (Fla. 1993), the Florida Supreme Court addressed the issue of when the statute of limitations begins to run in a medical malpractice action: [W]e have determined to place an interpretation on the Nardone rule designed to ameliorate the harsh results which can sometimes occur by its strict application. 2000To do so would make the reference to `knowledge of the negligent act' in the Nardone rule redundant and would result in an inordinate extension of the statute." 618 So.2d at 181 ; see also Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla.1976). | 1 | 5 |
Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBAgreen2 sentences2000Second, we stress that in all of these cases, "[i]t is a well-settled principle of Florida jurisprudence that summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so clear and undisputed that only questions of law remain." Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 643 (Fla.1999). 2000Second, we stress that in all of these cases, "[i]t is a well-settled principle of Florida jurisprudence that summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so clear and undisputed that only questions of law remain." Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 643 (Fla.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Cardenas ex rel. Cardenas v. Godboldgreen2 sentences1995Cardenas v. Godbold, 625 So.2d 98, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). 1995Cardenas v. Godbold, 625 So.2d 98, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Mackes v. St. Lucie Paper & Packaging, Inc.green2 sentences1995In Tanner , the Florida Supreme Court modified the Nardone rule by holding that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases would commence only when the plaintiff had knowledge of either the negligent act giving rise to the malpractice action or knowledge of the injury and "knowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical malpractice." Tanner, 618 So.2d at 181 (footnote omitted); accord Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harr, 618 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1993); Arango, 656 So.2d at 250-51 ; Davis v. Green, 625 So.2d 130, 131-32 (Fla. 4th 1995In Tanner , the Florida Supreme Court modified the Nardone rule by holding that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases would commence only when the plaintiff had knowledge of either the negligent act giving rise to the malpractice action or knowledge of the injury and "knowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical malpractice." Tanner, 618 So.2d at 181 (footnote omitted); accord Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harr, 618 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1993); Arango, 656 So.2d at 250-51 ; Davis v. Green, 625 So.2d 130, 131-32 (Fla. 4th | 1 | 1 |
Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harrgreen2 sentences1995In Tanner , the Florida Supreme Court modified the Nardone rule by holding that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases would commence only when the plaintiff had knowledge of either the negligent act giving rise to the malpractice action or knowledge of the injury and "knowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical malpractice." Tanner, 618 So.2d at 181 (footnote omitted); accord Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harr, 618 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1993); Arango, 656 So.2d at 250-51 ; Davis v. Green, 625 So.2d 130, 131-32 (Fla. 4th 1995In Tanner , the Florida Supreme Court modified the Nardone rule by holding that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases would commence only when the plaintiff had knowledge of either the negligent act giving rise to the malpractice action or knowledge of the injury and "knowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical malpractice." Tanner, 618 So.2d at 181 (footnote omitted); accord Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harr, 618 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1993); Arango, 656 So.2d at 250-51 ; Davis v. Green, 625 So.2d 130, 131-32 (Fla. 4th | 1 | 1 |
Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Finegreen2 sentences1993Thus, in Menendez v. Public Health Trust, 566 So.2d 279 , 282 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), approved, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1991), the court said that "[a] defect at birth does not necessarily put the parents on notice of injury or of possible negligence." In Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court held that "knowledge that one suffered injury during or subsequent to an operation, which could be supposed to have arisen out of natural causes, need not constitute notice of negligence or injury caused by negligence." More recently, in Norsworthy v. Ho 1993Thus, in Menendez v. Public Health Trust, 566 So.2d 279 , 282 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), approved, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1991), the court said that "[a] defect at birth does not necessarily put the parents on notice of injury or of possible negligence." In Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court held that "knowledge that one suffered injury during or subsequent to an operation, which could be supposed to have arisen out of natural causes, need not constitute notice of negligence or injury caused by negligence." More recently, in Norsworthy v. Ho | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kronman v. Norsworthy
neutral
2 sentences2000Kronman v. Norsworthy, 618 So.2d 186 (Fla.1993), cited in Tanner, 618 So.2d at 180 . 2000Kronman v. Norsworthy, 618 So.2d 186 (Fla.1993), cited in Tanner, 618 So.2d at 180 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Arango v. Orr
neutral
2 sentences1995In Tanner , the Florida Supreme Court modified the Nardone rule by holding that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases would commence only when the plaintiff had knowledge of either the negligent act giving rise to the malpractice action or knowledge of the injury and "knowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical malpractice." Tanner, 618 So.2d at 181 (footnote omitted); accord Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harr, 618 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1993); Arango, 656 So.2d at 250-51 ; Davis v. Green, 625 So.2d 130, 131-32 (Fla. 4th 1995In Tanner , the Florida Supreme Court modified the Nardone rule by holding that the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases would commence only when the plaintiff had knowledge of either the negligent act giving rise to the malpractice action or knowledge of the injury and "knowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical malpractice." Tanner, 618 So.2d at 181 (footnote omitted); accord Hillsborough Community Mental Health Ctr. v. Harr, 618 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1993); Arango, 656 So.2d at 250-51 ; Davis v. Green, 625 So.2d 130, 131-32 (Fla. 4th | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Menendez v. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF DADE CTY.
green
2 sentences1993Thus, in Menendez v. Public Health Trust, 566 So.2d 279 , 282 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), approved, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1991), the court said that "[a] defect at birth does not necessarily put the parents on notice of injury or of possible negligence." In Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court held that "knowledge that one suffered injury during or subsequent to an operation, which could be supposed to have arisen out of natural causes, need not constitute notice of negligence or injury caused by negligence." More recently, in Norsworthy v. Ho 1993Thus, in Menendez v. Public Health Trust, 566 So.2d 279 , 282 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), approved, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1991), the court said that "[a] defect at birth does not necessarily put the parents on notice of injury or of possible negligence." In Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court held that "knowledge that one suffered injury during or subsequent to an operation, which could be supposed to have arisen out of natural causes, need not constitute notice of negligence or injury caused by negligence." More recently, in Norsworthy v. Ho | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Barron v. Shapiro
green
2 sentences1993The current statute, which read the same when the Tanners had their stillborn child, is no exception: (b) An action for medical malpractice shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence... . *179 Section 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] The health-care providers rely heavily upon the principle announced in Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1976), and applied in Barron v. Shapiro, 565 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1990), and 1993The current statute, which read the same when the Tanners had their stillborn child, is no exception: (b) An action for medical malpractice shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence... . *179 Section 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] The health-care providers rely heavily upon the principle announced in Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1976), and applied in Barron v. Shapiro, 565 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1990), and | 1 | 1993–1993 |
University of Miami v. Bogorff
green
2 sentences1993The current statute, which read the same when the Tanners had their stillborn child, is no exception: (b) An action for medical malpractice shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence... . *179 Section 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] The health-care providers rely heavily upon the principle announced in Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1976), and applied in Barron v. Shapiro, 565 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1990), and 1993The current statute, which read the same when the Tanners had their stillborn child, is no exception: (b) An action for medical malpractice shall be commenced within 2 years from the time the incident giving rise to the action occurred or within 2 years from the time the incident is discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence... . *179 Section 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] The health-care providers rely heavily upon the principle announced in Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1976), and applied in Barron v. Shapiro, 565 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1990), and | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Public Health Trust v. Menendez
green
2 sentences1993Thus, in Menendez v. Public Health Trust, 566 So.2d 279 , 282 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), approved, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1991), the court said that "[a] defect at birth does not necessarily put the parents on notice of injury or of possible negligence." In Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court held that "knowledge that one suffered injury during or subsequent to an operation, which could be supposed to have arisen out of natural causes, need not constitute notice of negligence or injury caused by negligence." More recently, in Norsworthy v. Ho 1993Thus, in Menendez v. Public Health Trust, 566 So.2d 279 , 282 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), approved, 584 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1991), the court said that "[a] defect at birth does not necessarily put the parents on notice of injury or of possible negligence." In Southern Neurosurgical Associates v. Fine, 591 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court held that "knowledge that one suffered injury during or subsequent to an operation, which could be supposed to have arisen out of natural causes, need not constitute notice of negligence or injury caused by negligence." More recently, in Norsworthy v. Ho | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.