Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 766.103 (2025)
Florida Medical Consent Law.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
766.103 Florida Medical Consent Law.—
(1) This section shall be known and cited as the “Florida Medical Consent Law.”
(2) In any medical treatment activity not covered by s. 768.13, entitled the “Good Samaritan Act,” this act shall govern.
(3) No recovery shall be allowed in any court in this state against any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, dentist licensed under chapter 466, advanced practice registered nurse licensed under s. 464.012, or physician assistant licensed under s. 458.347 or s. 459.022 in an action brought for treating, examining, or operating on a patient without his or her informed consent when:
(a)1. The action of the physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, podiatric physician, dentist, advanced practice registered nurse, or physician assistant in obtaining the consent of the patient or another person authorized to give consent for the patient was in accordance with an accepted standard of medical practice among members of the medical profession with similar training and experience in the same or similar medical community as that of the person treating, examining, or operating on the patient for whom the consent is obtained; and
2. A reasonable individual, from the information provided by the physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, podiatric physician, dentist, advanced practice registered nurse, or physician assistant, under the circumstances, would have a general understanding of the procedure, the medically acceptable alternative procedures or treatments, and the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedures, which are recognized among other physicians, osteopathic physicians, chiropractic physicians, podiatric physicians, or dentists in the same or similar community who perform similar treatments or procedures; or
(b) The patient would reasonably, under all the surrounding circumstances, have undergone such treatment or procedure had he or she been advised by the physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, podiatric physician, dentist, advanced practice registered nurse, or physician assistant in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a).
(4)(a) A consent which is evidenced in writing and meets the requirements of subsection (3) shall, if validly signed by the patient or another authorized person, raise a rebuttable presumption of a valid consent.
(b) A valid signature is one which is given by a person who under all the surrounding circumstances is mentally and physically competent to give consent.
History.—s. 11, ch. 75-9; s. 21, ch. 85-175; s. 1150, ch. 97-102; s. 62, ch. 97-264; ss. 230, 297, ch. 98-166; s. 2, ch. 2007-176; s. 11, ch. 2016-145; s. 78, ch. 2018-106.
Note.—Former s. 768.132; s. 768.46.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017).
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017). “§ 766.103(3)(a)1.-2., Fla. Stat. (2016). In addition, in 1997, the Florida Legislature passed the “Woman’s Right to Know Act,” an informed consent statute specific to procedures involving the termination of pregnancies.”
Gouveia v. Phillips, 823 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “With all respect, we do not understand section 766.103(3) to contain any such requirement to resolve a dispute as to whether certain handwriting was already on a form when the patient signed it, or whether the patient was previously advised by the physician as to its content…”
State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 937 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2006). “[2] Section 766.103, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: No recovery shall be allowed in any court in this state against any physician .”
State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 707 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “The statute allows a referral physician, who may be a pediatrician or an orthopedic surgeon, who may have no training or experience in the field, to provide the information, but prohibits a board certified obstetrician/gynecologist who works with the physician performing the…”
Cedars Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Ravelo, 738 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). “The current version of the law is codified in section 766.103, Florida Statutes (1997).”
Robertson v. State, 604 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1992). “§ 766.103, Fla. Stat. (1989). [9] This portion of the statute obviously is aimed at promoting the health of test subjects by ensuring that blood is drawn only by qualified persons.”
Jackson v. United States, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (M.D. Fla. 2006). “103(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), which I find he did, I further find that Mr.”
Santa Lucia v. LeVine, 198 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “” Id,; see § 766.103(3)(a)(2), (3)(b) (identifying “reasonable individual” and reasonable Ratient as the standard for informed consent issues); Cox, 71 So.”
Greenberg v. Miami Child.'s Hosp. Rsch. Inst., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “Gomez, 738 So.2d 362, 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (excluding Hospital from statutory duty of informed consent).”
State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 884 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “2d at 1150 ; see also Section 766.103, Fla. Stat.; 20. Under Florida's Medical Consent Law, physicians are to provide information that would enable a "reasonable individual, .”
Drew v. Tenet St. Mary's, Inc., 46 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “See § 766.103(3)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (2010) (Doctor must furnish sufficient information under the circumstances to give reasonable individual general understanding of the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedures).”
Angeli v. Kluka, 190 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “§ 766.103(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). ' The focus of the medical consent statute is the “informed” aspect of consent rather than the identity of the person’ giving' consent.”
— 766.103(3) — 4 cases
State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 937 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2006). “[2] Section 766.103, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: No recovery shall be allowed in any court in this state against any physician .”
Gouveia v. Phillips, 823 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “With all respect, we do not understand section 766.103(3) to contain any such requirement to resolve a dispute as to whether certain handwriting was already on a form when the patient signed it, or whether the patient was previously advised by the physician as to its content…”
Jackson v. United States, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (M.D. Fla. 2006). “103(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), which I find he did, I further find that Mr.”
Angeli v. Kluka, 190 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “§ 766.103(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). ' The focus of the medical consent statute is the “informed” aspect of consent rather than the identity of the person’ giving' consent.”
— 766.103(3)(a) — 6 cases
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017). “§ 766.103(3)(a)1.-2., Fla. Stat. (2016). In addition, in 1997, the Florida Legislature passed the “Woman’s Right to Know Act,” an informed consent statute specific to procedures involving the termination of pregnancies.”
State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 707 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “The statute allows a referral physician, who may be a pediatrician or an orthopedic surgeon, who may have no training or experience in the field, to provide the information, but prohibits a board certified obstetrician/gynecologist who works with the physician performing the…”
Jackson v. United States, 469 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (M.D. Fla. 2006). “103(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), which I find he did, I further find that Mr.”
Drew v. Tenet St. Mary's, Inc., 46 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “See § 766.103(3)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (2010) (Doctor must furnish sufficient information under the circumstances to give reasonable individual general understanding of the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedures).”
— 766.103(3)(a)(1) — 1 case
Gouveia v. Phillips, 823 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “With all respect, we do not understand section 766.103(3) to contain any such requirement to resolve a dispute as to whether certain handwriting was already on a form when the patient signed it, or whether the patient was previously advised by the physician as to its content…”
— 766.103(3)(a)(2) — 3 cases
Gouveia v. Phillips, 823 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “With all respect, we do not understand section 766.103(3) to contain any such requirement to resolve a dispute as to whether certain handwriting was already on a form when the patient signed it, or whether the patient was previously advised by the physician as to its content…”
Santa Lucia v. LeVine, 198 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “” Id,; see § 766.103(3)(a)(2), (3)(b) (identifying “reasonable individual” and reasonable Ratient as the standard for informed consent issues); Cox, 71 So.”
State v. Presidential Women's Ctr., 884 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “2d at 1150 ; see also Section 766.103, Fla. Stat.; 20. Under Florida's Medical Consent Law, physicians are to provide information that would enable a "reasonable individual, .”
— 766.103(4)(a) — 1 case
Angeli v. Kluka, 190 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “§ 766.103(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). ' The focus of the medical consent statute is the “informed” aspect of consent rather than the identity of the person’ giving' consent.”
— 766.103(4)(b) — 1 case
Gouveia v. Phillips, 823 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “With all respect, we do not understand section 766.103(3) to contain any such requirement to resolve a dispute as to whether certain handwriting was already on a form when the patient signed it, or whether the patient was previously advised by the physician as to its content…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.