The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
Id. The same stands true in the present case within the context of a section 766.104(2) petition. As a basis for summary judgment, it is not enough for a court to merely speculate that the party had knowledge because he or she filed a petition or a request for medical records pursuant to Chapter 766. As this Court affirmed multiple times, the question of knowledge is fact-specific and a matter for the jury. Id.(1) Before the expiration of any applicable statute of limitations or statute of repose, tThe notice of intent to initiate litigation shallmust be served by certified mailed to the prospective defendant as provided in sections 766.106(2)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes, or an attempt to serve the prospective defendant must be made in accordance with section 766.106(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, return receipt requested, prior to the expiration of any applicable statute of limitations or statute of repose. If an extension has been granted under section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, or by agreement of the parties, the notice shall be servedmust be mailed or service first attempted within the extended period.Chapter 766, Florida's Medical Malpractice Act, sets out the procedure each claimant must comply with prior to filing a medical malpractice action, including presuit notice and screening. See § 766.104, 766.106, 766.201-.212, Fla. Stat. (2021). Where a complaint is filed before complying with the requirements of chapter 766, dismissal is required. Dial 4 Care, Inc. v. Brinson, 319 So. 3d 111, 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) ; Corbo v. Garcia, 949 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ; University of Miami v. Jones, 338 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).Dr. Perez Ortiz and Perez Eye Center allege that the trigger date for the statute of limitations is May 11, 2015, the day Ms. Martinez was discharged from the hospital. Assuming, arguendo, that this was the triggering date for statute of limitations purposes, Ms. Martinez had two years from that date, or until May 11, 2017, to serve her notices of intent to initiate litigation on Dr. Perez Ortiz and Perez Eye Center. See § 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015) ; see also § 766.106(4). Prior to that time, Ms. Martinez obtained an automatic ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104( 2), giving Ms. Martinez until August 8, 2017, to serve her notice of intent on Dr. Perez Ortiz and Perez Eye Center. Ms. Martinez served her notices of intent on Dr. Perez Ortiz and Perez Eye Center on July 27, 2017, triggering the ninety-day tolling of the statute of limitations under section 766.106(4). The parties agreed to further extend the presuit investigation period on three separate occasions. Dr. Perez Ortiz and Perez Eye Center ultimately denied Ms. Martinez's claims on November 22, 2017. Accordingly, the statute of limitations was set to expire on… Ms. Sanderson initiated her medical malpractice claim against Dr. Dontineni by mailing him notice of her intent to sue. See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). This notice included affidavits from two doctors, including Neil Julie, M.D., supporting her allegations. See id . § 766.104(1). Dr. Julie is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology. He is a gastroenterologist who treats his patients in an outpatient setting.reasonable investigation and that there is a basis for a good faith belief that medical negligence occurred. Fla. Stat. § 766.104 (2005). The Florida Supreme Court has made clear that these requirements are prerequisites to suit, but not jurisdictional. Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278, 283 (Fla. 1996). . . .The 90-day purchased extension under section 766.104(2) is not the same as "the 90-day period" in section 766.106(4).See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2017) ; § 766.203(1) -(2), Fla. Stat. (2017).In Florida, "[n]o action shall be filed for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence, whether in tort or in contract, unless the attorney filing the action has made a reasonable investigation as permitted by the circumstances to determine that there are grounds for a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant." § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2019).The burden placed on plaintiffs' lawyers by section 766.104(1) is separate from the plaintiffs' own responsibility to conduct a pre-suit investigation under section 766.203(2) and comes with the additional requirement that the 12 "complaint or initial pleading shall contain a certificate of counsel that such reasonable investigation gave rise to a good faith belief that grounds exist for an action against each named defendant," § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat.. . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .
. . . malpractice, compliance with the statutory pre-suit notice and investigation requirements of sections 766.104 . . .
. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion "that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .
. . . See § 766.104(a). . . . the delinquent portion of the loan; and (ii) the borrower must have acted in good faith. 7 C.F.R. §§ 766.104 . . .
. . . If an extension has been granted under section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, or by agreement of the parties . . .
. . . .” § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .
. . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .
. . . 'See § 766.104(2) (permitting the extension of statute of limitations period upon petition, but providing . . .
. . . 19, 2012, after having received the ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations under section 766.104 . . .
. . . she obtained an automatic ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to subsection 766.104 . . . After extensive review of the Florida Statutes and the history of Section 766.104 we are unable to conclude . . . were sent within the statute of limitations as properly calculated under all of the terms of Section 766.104 . . . claim would have expired on November 19, 1996 but under Hankey, the ninety-day extension of subsection 766.104 . . .
. . . . § 766.104(1) (“No action shall be filed for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical . . .
. . . ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations in medical negligence actions as provided for by section 766.104 . . . notice of intent by May 8, 2008, that the attempt to obtain a ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(2) provides in pertinent part as follows: "Upon petition to the clerk of court where . . .
. . . Sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes, provide for tolling of the statute of limitations under . . .
. . . See §§ 766.104, .106, .203, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . The presuit requirements are set forth in sections 766.104, .106, and .203. . . . Sections 766.104 and .106 do not contain a definition of health care provider. . . . Subsection (3) of section 766.104 references section 456.00 l’s definition of "health care practitioner . . .
. . . was proper because the Pollocks’ counsel failed to comply with the presuit requirements of sections 766.104 . . .
. . . . § 766.104. . . .
. . . . § 766.104(2). . . .
. . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods. § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Because only one month remained and because the ninety-day purchased period from section 766.104(2) is . . . Given that section 766.104(2) authorized a 90-day extension, our supreme court concluded, the payment . . . the original statute of limitations, or under the automatic ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . .
. . . Cohen filed a ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104, Florida Statutes, on October 27, 1999 . . .
. . . .” § 766.104(1) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . even if you were to assume that they had sought the 90-day automatic extension permitted by section 766.104 . . .
. . . . § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); §§ 766.106(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. . . .
. . . Section 766.104(2) On December 7, 1998, the Po-rumbescus filed a petition for an automatic extension . . . of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104(2), which provides: Upon petition to the clerk . . . This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods. § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . under section 766.106(4) in addition to the automatic 90-day extension petitioned for under section 766.104 . . . , 638 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), where after carefully considering the language in section 766.104 . . .
. . . 2003, the plaintiffs secured an automatic 90-day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to § 766.104 . . .
. . . Thomas filed a petition pursuant to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (2003), for an automatic 90-day . . .
. . . dismiss Johnson’s negligence claim for failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.104 . . . Stat. § 766.104 (2005). . . . Stat. § 766.104(1) (2005). . . . .
. . . . § 766.104, Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .
. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . . Stat. (2002); see also § 766.104(1), Fla. . . .
. . . Burbank, the malpractice claimant, petitioned the circuit court for an extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . .
. . . Rodriguez filed a petition to extend the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104(2), Florida . . .
. . . If an extension has been granted under section 768.495(2) 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, or by agreement . . .
. . . . §§ 766.104(1), 766.203(2). . . . See § 766.104(2); § 766.106(3)(a); § 766.106(4). . . .
. . . With the extension purchased pursuant to section 766.104(2), the statute of limitations would have run . . . This argument is contrary to the plain language of section 766.104(2) and the supreme court’s holding . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (“This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods.”). . . . Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, a timely purchased . . . Coffaro deals with the interplay between section 766.104(2) and section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes, . . .
. . . Virginia Insurance complied with the medical malpractice presuit screening requirements of sections 766.104 . . . for a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant. § 766.104 . . . an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definitions of sections 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that no medical negligence action can be filed . . .
. . . tolling and extension periods of the medical malpractice statute of limitations, in particular, sections 766.104 . . . that these provisions are separate statutory provisions, I also cannot ignore the language of section 766.104 . . . The interpretation given by the majority that the purchased extension of section 766.104(2) is added . . . Further, in discussing section 766.104(2), we stated that the plaintiff can “also automatically secure . . . Sections 766.104(2) and 766.106(4), Florida Statutes, were enacted as part of the same bill in 1985. . . . District Court of Appeal as one of great public importance: IS A 90-DAY EXTENSION PURCHASED UNDER SECTION 766.104 . . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . The instant case involves the interplay between section 766.104(2) and section 766.106(4). . . . In fact, we approved this interpretation of section 766.104(2) in Tanner. See id. at 182. . . . cannot agree with the majority because I do not believe that the majority properly applies sections 766.104 . . . depending on when the purchase of the extension to the statute of limitations authorized by section 766.104 . . . recognized in Rothschild is that the extension of the statute of limitations authorized by section 766.104 . . . See § 766.104(2). 2. Determine the date when the tolling period begins for each defendant. . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .
. . . With the ninety-day extension authorized by Florida Statute section 766.104(2), the statute of limitations . . .
. . . The Act further provides in section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes, that: No action shall be filed for . . .
. . . statute of limitations under section 95.11(4)(b) is suspended (“tolled”) for ninety days under section 766.104 . . .
. . . Parham, 745 So.2d 946 (Fla.1999), that the tolling provisions of section 766.104(2) and section 766.106 . . .
. . . The Act further provides in section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes, that: No action shall be filed for . . .
. . . malpractice, the plaintiff complied with the medical malpractice presuit screening requirements of sections 766.104 . . . an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definition of sections 766.104 . . .
. . . . § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) ; §§ 766.106(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997) ; § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. . . .
. . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . SECTION 766.104(2) Finally, in addition to the two scenarios involved in section 766.106(4) discussed . . . Section 766.104(2) provides: Upon petition to the clerk of the court where the suit will be filed and . . . In fact, we approved this interpretation of section 766.104(2) in Tanner. See id. at 182. . . .
. . . This case involves the interplay of three such provisions in sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes . . . •Section 766.104(2) allows a 90-day extension of the limitations period upon application to the clerk . . . Pursuant to section 766.104(2), “[t]his period shall be in addition to other tolling periods.” . . . If not a tolling period, we conclude that section 766.104(2) would allow the purchased extension to be . . . Section 766.104(2) does not limit the time at which a plaintiff may purchase this extension, other than . . .
. . . be of great public importance: DO THE EXTENSIONS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 766.104 . . . THE PLAINTIFF PETITIONS FOR AN AUTOMATIC 90-DAY EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER SECTION 766.104 . . . 2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE “REASONABLE INVESTIGATION” REQUIRED BY SECTION 766.104 . . . On December 16, 1994, Par-ham filed a petition, pursuant to section 766.104(2), for an automatic 90-day . . . In conjunction with section 766.106, the “reasonable investigation” requirement of section 766.104 is . . .
. . . On May 31, 1994, appellant petitioned for an automatic ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . . On May 31, 1994, appellant filed a petition for a ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104(2) . . .
. . . for an automatic 90 day extension to the two year statutory limitation period, pursuant to section 766.104 . . . petitioned for an automatic ninety (90) days stay of the Statute of Limitations under Florida Statute 766.104 . . . This court explained that absent application of section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, the suit would . . . on November 2, 1994, past the running of the statute of limitations but for the operation of section 766.104 . . . The plaintiff (as the plaintiffs here) had, in accordance with section 766.104(2) , filed a petition . . .
. . . We conclude that the section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, extension to the limitations period should . . . section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes, the appellant filed a petition for an extension under section 766.104 . . . original two-year period had run, but within the ninety-day extension which pertains under section 766.104 . . . Despite the technical noncomplianee with section 766.104(2), the automatic ninety-day extension should . . . Section 766.104(2) was in existence when the alleged cause of action accrued in the present case, and . . .
. . . peti tion for an automatic ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations, pursuant to section 766.104 . . . In addition, under séction 766.104(2), a claimant can essentially “buy” a ninety-day extension of the . . . On October 30, 1995, the appellant “purchased” a ninety-day extension under section 766.104(2). . . . In fact, even without the extended period provided for in section 766.104(2), the suit was timely filed . . .
. . . issue raised in this appeal is whether the extensions of the statute of limitations allowed by sections 766.104 . . . On December 16,1994, Parham filed a petition, pursuant to section 766.104(2), for an automatic 90-day . . . that the repose time period was extended or tolled by their petition pursuant to Florida Stat utes § 766.104 . . . one of great public importance: DO THE EXTENSIONS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(2) provides: Upon petition to the clerk of the court where the suit will be filed and . . . that the statute of repose in 95.11(4)(b) is neither extended nor tolled by the provisions of sections 766.104 . . . The provisions contained in sections 766.104(2) and 766.106(4) were originally enacted as part of the . . . Therefore, at the time the legislature drafted the language in sections 766.104 and 766.106, respectively . . .
. . . . § 766.104(2). . . .
. . . II Section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that “[n]o action shall be filed for personal . . . provider” who may testify as an expert in a medical negligence action, and who, pursuant to section 766.104 . . . claimant’s presuit investigation — the standard set forth in section 766.102(2)(c)2, as allowed by section 766.104 . . .
. . . This is an appeal from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206(2), Florida . . . Thereafter, L.H.O.C. moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206 . . . An award of attorney’s fees is permitted under section 766.104(1) where the court determines that counsel . . . Thus, neither section 766.104(1) or section 766.206(2) provides a basis for an attorney’s fee award in . . . Section 766.104(1) reads: No action shall be filed for personal injury or wrongful death arising out . . .
. . . The applicable portions of Chapter 766 provide: 766.104 Pleading in medical negligence cases; claim for . . .
. . . Section 766.104(1) provides that no medical negligence action shall be filed “unless the attorney filing . . . Section 766.104(2) provides for a ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations “to allow the reasonable . . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .
. . . on November 2, 1994, past the running of the statute of limitations but for the operation of section 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(2) provides: Upon petition to the clerk of court where the suit will be filed, and payment . . . HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 95.11, Fla.Stat. (1991). . §§ 766.104(2) and 766.106(4), Fla.Stat . . .
. . . Pursuant to § 766.104(1), Florida Statutes, the undersigned attorney for the plaintiffs hereby certifies . . .
. . . action below for failure to comply with the medical malpractice screening requirements of Sections 766.104 . . .
. . . We do note, however, that the plaintiffs have pled good-faith compliance with section 766.104, Florida . . . Section 766.104, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in part: (1) No action shall be filed for personal . . .
. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .
. . . reverse, as the Kagans were granted an extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . . filed and were granted a ninety (90) day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . . the Kagans were granted a ninety (90) day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . .
. . . . § 766.104(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). . . . Lehrer’s written opinion, attached as Exhibit B, adequately comply with the section 766.104(1) requirements . . .
. . . Bisogno on 13 November 1990, pursuant to section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes (1991). . . .
. . . for and received an automatic ninety-day extension to the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . .
. . . The first is section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes (1991), formerly section 768.495(2), which states: . . . 90 days by filing a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.104 . . .
. . . Section 766.104(1) provides that no medical negligence action shall be filed “unless the attorney filing . . . Section 766.104(2) provides for a 90-day extension of the statute of limitations “to allow the reasonable . . .
. . . date, Boyd timely requested and received a ninety day extension of the limitation period per section 766.104 . . . On August 30, 1990, Boyd mailed a notice of intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.104 . . . However, June 3rd was on a Sunday, whereby June 4th became the relevant date for section 766.104(2). . . .
. . . Renumbered as sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991). . . . .
. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .
. . . 90 days by filing a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.104 . . .
. . . In addition, section 766.104(2) provides for an additional 90-day extension of the limitations period . . . was entitled to two (2) consecutive tolling periods of 90 days each under the provisions of sections 766.104 . . . court has maintained that the two 90-day periods, of toll and extension, under sections 766.106(4) and 766.104 . . . More importantly, section 766.104(2) specifically states that the 90-day extension is “in addition to . . .
. . . Section 768.495, Florida Statutes (1987) was transferred to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988 . . .
. . . an automatic ninety-day extension of the limitation period under then section 768.495, now section 766.104 . . .
. . . The above statute has a logical counterpart in sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989). . . . Section 766.104(2) expressly authorizes an extension of the statute of limitations to allow reasonable . . .
. . . dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff had failed to comply and plead compliance with sections 766.104 . . .
. . . Transferred to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). . 768.57 Notice before filing action for . . .
. . . respondents filed their complaint without first complying with the mandatory requirements of sections 766.104 . . .
. . . Insofar as pertinent here, Abaunza moved to dismiss for Baptist’s failure to comply with section 766.104 . . . It appears that the trial court invoked section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), as well as section 766.104 . . . an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definition of sections 766.104 . . .
. . . Transferred to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). . . . .