The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
Halsey filed a motion to dismiss Hoffman's amended complaint and argued that the claims arise out of Halsey's rendering of medical care or services, are based on an alleged incorrect or improper diagnosis of factitious disorder, and constitute claims of medical negligence. He argued that the case should be dismissed because Hoffman did not comply with the presuit requirements contained in section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2020).Florida law defines “medical malpractice” as “a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care services.” Fla. Stat. § 766.106(1)(a). However, the mere fact that a claim arises in a medical setting does not transform an ordinary negligence claim into one for medical malpractice; the wrongful act must be “directly related to medical care or services, which require the use of professional judgment or skill.” National Deaf Academy, LLC v. Townes, 242 So.3d 303, 311-12 (Fla. 2018); Holmes Reg'l Med.Ctr., Inc. 151 So.3d at 1286.Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106, the claimant shall conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:"The determination of whether a complaint alleges a claim for medical malpractice is a legal one and is, therefore, reviewed de novo." Nat'l Deaf Acad., LLC v. Townes, 242 So.3d 303, 308 (Fla. 2018) (citing Dockswell v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 210 So.3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 2017); Pierrot v. Osceola Mental Health, Inc., 106 So.3d 491, 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)). "Medical negligence" or "medical malpractice" is defined as "a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015); accord § 95.11(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). Thus, "for an action to sound in medical malpractice, the act from which the claim arises must be directly related to medical care or services, which require the use of professional judgment or skill." Rockledge HMA, LLC v. Lawley, 310 So.3d 112, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Townes, 242 So.3d at 311-12).Florida Statutes § 766.106(1)(a) defines a claim for medical negligence or medical malpractice as “a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” “When determining whether a complaint alleges a cause of action in medical negligence versus simple negligence, the key inquiry is whether the action arises out of medical diagnosis, treatment, or care.” Buck v. Columbia Hosp. Corp. of S. Broward, 147 So.3d 604, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (cleaned up). As such, “[t]he critical question is whether the plaintiff must rely on the medical negligence standard of care as defined by the statute to prevail.” Pomper v. Ferraro, 206 So.3d 728, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).Throughout rule 1.650, references to "notice" are amended to "service of a notice." Subdivisions (b)(1) and (d)(1) are amended to reflect that a claimant may serve a notice of intent to initiate litigation by any of the means provided in section 766.106(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2022), as opposed to only by certified mail. Also, subdivision (b)(3) is amended to provide that if service is challenged in the first response to the complaint, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing as provided by section 766.106(2)(b)(2).The claim against Corizon is more straightforward. This claim is one of medical malpractice. And, under Florida law, a plaintiff must provide pre-suit notice to defendants in medical malpractice actions. Fla. Stat. § 766.106(2). Here, it is undisputed that Ireland's Estate did not provide that pre-suit notice, but still Ireland's Estate attempts to argue that the claim sounds in ordinary negligence. We conclude that it does not. See id. § 766.106(1)(a) (noting that the pre-suit notice requirements apply to any claim "arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services"). Ireland's Estate cannot avoid the nature of the claim through artful pleading. Florida law is clear that courts must look beyond the label affixed by the plaintiff to ascertain the true nature of the claim. See Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. Moser , 106 So. 3d 474, 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) ; Dr. Navarro's Vein Ctr. of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Miller , 22 So. 3d 776, 778 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (finding that a claim for negligence in laser hair removal is a medical malpractice claim "despite the plaintiff's creative dance around the obvious").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… In the Report, Judge McAliley recommends that the Court dismiss this case on several grounds. First, the Report notes that Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to accept service of the Motion to Dismiss and Defendant's subsequent Motion to Stay Proceedings (DE 19), violating the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida. (DE 24 at 1-4.) Second, the Report notes that in responding to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff failed to “dispute any of the arguments that Defendant raises in its Motion [to Dismiss].” (Id. at 4.) Third, the Report agrees with the Motion to Dismiss that: (1) Plaintiff's Complaint constitutes a shotgun pleading in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with pre-suit notice of her medical malpractice suit, as Fla. Stat. § 766.106 requires; and (3) Plaintiff's Complaint “improperly seeks pre-judgment garnishment, liens[,] and unspecified equitable relief.” (Id. at 4-5.) On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed her objections to the Report. (DE 25.) Upon review of the well-reasoned Report, Plaintiff's Objections, the record, and applicable case law, the Court agrees with Judge McAliley's recommendations.. . . Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Rhodes served Petitioners with a presuit notice of intent to initiate . . .
. . . failed to comply with the presuit requirements for bringing a medical malpractice action under section 766.106 . . . to eliminate the medical malpractice allegations or comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . .
. . . See, e.g., § 766.106(2)(a), (3)(a), Fla. . . .
. . . compliance with the statutory pre-suit notice and investigation requirements of sections 766.104(1) and 766.106 . . .
. . . Hospital is a claim for medical malpractice that requires compliance with the notice provision of section 766.106 . . . was required because Simmons did not provide Hospital with the pre-suit notice required by section 766.106 . . . alleged damages arose "out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106 . . . when the claim arises out of the "rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106 . . . See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). See § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .
. . . . § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .
. . . . § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . statutory scheme, as well as a shorter statute of limitations than for ordinary negligence claims. § 766.106 . . . as "a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106 . . . malpractice as a claim arising out of the rendering of, or failure to render, "medical care or services." § 766.106 . . .
. . . This case involves a Florida constitutional challenge to the 2013 amendments to sections 766.106 and . . . See § 766.106(6)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . .” § 766.106(5), Fla. Stat. . . . .” § 766.106(6)(a), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 766.106(6)(b)5., Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Weaver, 170 So.3d at 882. tThe district court also observed that the predecessor statute to section 766.106 . . . Rule 1.650 specifically addresses section 766.106, Florida Statutes, and the medical malpractice presuit . . .
. . . (citations omitted); see also § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. . . .
. . . surviving parents and children, but are not applicable to claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106 . . .
. . . limitations and serving medical,malpractice pre-suit notices as required under Florida Statute Section 766.106 . . .
. . . . § 766.106—is undisputed. . . .
. . . notice of intent to initiate litigation shall be served within [the statute of limitations]”); section 766.106 . . .
. . . “medical negligence” as “medical malpractice, whether grounded in tort or in contract,” and section 766.106 . . .
. . . pre-suit screening period and provided there is no mutual agreement to arbitrate under Florida Statutes, 766.106 . . . the parties” in all aspects except that if there is no mutual agreement to arbitrate under sections 766.106 . . . under the statutes would have to secure the “mutual agreement to arbitrate under Florida Statutes, 766.106 . . . negligence claim intact, the parties may elect to have damages determined by an arbitration panel"); § 766.106 . . .
. . . failure to comply with the presuit requirements for medical malpractice actions contained within section 766.106 . . . moved to dismiss, asserting Respondents’ failure to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . . Appellate Analysis Section 766.106 establishes the pre-suit notice requirements for complaints alleging . . . Section 766.106(l)(a) defines a claim for medical negligence or medical malpractice as “a claim, arising . . . supreme court interpreted section 768,57, Florida Statutes, which was renumbered in 1988 as section 766.106 . . .
. . . After filing their notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice, see § 766.106(2), . . .
. . . 'Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2008), “imposes presuit requirements on a claim for medical negligence . . .
. . . . § 766.106) apply to pharmacies and pharmacists. . . .
. . . She relies on section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2013), to argue that because she served her notice . . . Section 766.106(4) provides that during the ninety days following service of a notice of intent, the . . . Becker, 627 So.2d 481, 483 (Fla.1993) (analyzing both sections 766.106(3) and 766.106(4), Florida Statutes . . . See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . . See § 766.106(3)(a). And there is no indication that such a result was intended. . . .
. . . On behalf of his widow, his children and the estate, pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes . . . entailed admitting liability, without making the offer “contingent upon a limit of general damages.” § 766.106 . . . ROWE and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur. .Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2003), provides in part: (3) PRESUIT . . . the permission of the insured, any offer of admission of liability and for arbitration pursuant to s. 766.106 . . . exclusive right to veto any offer for admission of liability and for arbitration made pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .
. . . two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims, as dictated by sections 95.11(4)(b) and 766.106 . . . As regards the application of the statute of limitations in sections 95.11(4)(b) and 766.106(4), the . . . As for the applicability of chapter 766, the supreme court read section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes . . . the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.’ ” Id. at 949 (citing section 766.106 . . .
. . . giving to a patient in a locked psychiatric unit, the complaint alleges medical negligence under section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106(1)(a) defines a “ ‘[c]laim for medical negligence’ or ‘claim for medical malpractice’ . . . Despite the Estate’s disavowals of medical negligence, we agree with Shands because under § 766.106(l . . . Estate’s claim arises out of the medical care, treatment, and services provided to her for purposes of § 766.106 . . . Id. at 177; see § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. . . .
. . . 2013 amendments to the medical malpractice presuit notice sections of the Florida Statutes:' sections 766.106 . . . when conducting this presuit informal investigation, including the taking of unsworn statements. § 766.106 . . . (codified at § 766.106(b)(5), Fla. Stat. (2013)); Ch. 2013-108 § 4, Laws of Fla. . . . The rule also appears to mirror section 766.106(6), Florida Statutes, as it was amended three months . . . See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. . . . .” § 766.106(6)(b)(5), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . period of 75 days after [presuit] notice is mailed to any prospective defendant”); 429.293(3)(a) (same); 766.106 . . .
. . . . § 766.106(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). The neutral evaluation statute contains no such prohibition. . . .
. . . Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation served on those Defendants/Appellees was timely under Section 766.106 . . . the statutory provisions which are at the crux of the issue in this appeal: Florida Statutes Section 766.106 . . . Simply, the issue in this appeal is: does the Section 766.106(3)(a) 90-day tolling of the statute of . . . For the reasons stated below, we find that in this factual scenario, the Section 766.106(3)(a) 90-day . . . We acknowledge that subsections 766.106(4) and 766.106(2) use different terminology, one uses “prospective . . .
. . . (citing § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat.). . . .
. . . Nieves a notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice action against him pursuant to section 766.106 . . .
. . . limitations period and timely filed her Complaint within the tolling period provided under Florida Statutes § 766.106 . . . Stat. § 766.106(4) (“The notice of intent to initiate litigation shall be served within the time limits . . . Stat. § 766.106(4). . . .
. . . . § 766.106(3)(a). . . . Id. § 766.106(3)(a). . . . Id. § 766.106(3)(b). . . . Id. § 766.106(3)(d). . . . Id. § 766.106(4). . . .
. . . Section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), defines a “[cjlaim for medical negligence” or “claim . . .
. . . Section 766.106 defines a “ ‘[c]laim for medical negligence’ or ‘claim for medical malpractice’ [as] . . . a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . .
. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Section 766.106(2)(a) provides in part that "[a]fter completion of presuit investigation pursuant to . . .
. . . Sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes, provide for tolling of the statute of limitations under . . .
. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. . . . Id. § 766.106(2). The presuit-notice requirement has long been in force and is plainly valid. Mr. . . .
. . . The ophthalmologist subsequently filed an Answer, asserting noncompliance with sections 766.102, 766.106 . . . Answer asserted the plaintiff “failed to comply with the spirit or law embodied by Florida Statute 766.106 . . . certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence.” § 766.106 . . . .” § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .
. . . Acostas’ claims against HealthSpring were not “claims for medical malpractice” as defined in section 766.106 . . .
. . . . § 766.106(3)(a). . . . made to each claimant who has joined in the notice of intent to initiate litigation, as provided in s.766.106 . . .
. . . surviving parents and children, but are not applicable to claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106 . . .
. . . determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . . As used in section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2010), a " ‘[c]laim for medical negligence’ or 'claim for . . . means a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . .
. . . claim under section 400.022 ... is not required to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . . Nothing in section 766.106 compels this court to read that statute in an expansive manner to include . . .
. . . in the trial court based on Respondent’s failure to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . .
. . . .— Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .
. . . because the Pollocks’ counsel failed to comply with the presuit requirements of sections 766.104 and 766.106 . . .
. . . We conclude that section 766.106, Florida Statute’s (2003), notice of intent to initiate litigation sent . . . In May 2008, King sent by certified mail two formal notices pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes . . . that she complied with all the conditions precedent to the filing of the action as required in section 766.106 . . . Hospital then moved to dismiss the amended complaint because it had not been directly served a section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2003) provides, in pertinent part: (2) Presuit notice.— (a) After . . .
. . . .— Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .
. . . Section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes Does Not Prohibit Plaintiff From Using the Expert Affidavit of its . . . Section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes Does Not Prohibit Plaintiff From Using the Expert Affidavit of its . . .
. . . See § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009); see also J.B. v. . . .
. . . . § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Shortly after Dr. . . . Fahel had to respond to the plaintiffs’ notice of intent to initiate litigation, see § 766.106(3), .203 . . .
. . . comply with the conditions precedent prior to the filing of this action pursuant to Florida Statutes § 766.106 . . . Section 766.106 imposes presuit requirements on a claim for medical negligence or malpractice. . . . Snyder, 899 So.2d 336, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . . the affirmative defense that the patient failed to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . .
. . . See §§ 766.106(2), (4), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See §§ 766.106(3) & (4), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 766.106(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . .” § 766.106(4), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 766.106(4), Fla. . . .
. . . DCA 2008) (granting certiorari where trial court incorrectly found that presuit notice under section 766.106 . . . Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), filing the notice had the effect of tolling . . .
. . . See §§ 766.106(3)(b)(3); 766.207(2); 766.207(7); 766.118(2), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . The presuit notice requirement is set forth in section 766.106. . . . .” § 766.106(2)(a). . . . “[T]he proper test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to notice under section 766.106(2) . . . See § 766.106(l)(a) (“ ‘Claim for medical negligence’ or ‘claim for medical malpractice’ means a claim . . . See § 766.106(l)(a). . . .
. . . . § 766.106(2)(a). . . .
. . . . § 766.106, and requires mediation for malpractice cases, id. § 766.108(1). . . .
. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2009). As we explained in Mobley v. Gilbert E. . . . Hirschberg, P.A., 915 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005): Section 766.106 imposes presuit requirements . . . Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola, 635 So.2d 945, 949 (Fla.1994)); § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. . . . petition for writ of certio-rari, holding that the complaint is one of “medical negligence” under section 766.106 . . .
. . . See § 766.106(4). Therefore, the statute of limitations expired in September 2007. . Dr. . . .
. . . Gordon and Strax a notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice, pursuant to section 766.106 . . . 2008, Gordon and Strax requested from Shield information relating to her claim pursuant to section 766.106 . . . must notify the prospective defendants of her intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice. § 766.106 . . . ; however, both parties “shall make discoverable information available without formal discovery.” § 766.106 . . .
. . . Gu a notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice action against him pursuant to sections 766.106 . . . to notify each prospective defendant of his or her intent to initiate a medical negligence action. § 766.106 . . . See § 766.106(4). . . . .
. . . . § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . As explained by the supreme court, “[s]ection 766.106(2) does not define the ‘prospective defendants’ . . .
. . . requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2008), which include presuit notice as set forth in section 766.106 . . . See §§ 766.106, .203 (Fla.Stat.2008). . . . Section 766.106, for example, sets forth the requirements of presuit notice and presuit investigation . . . as] a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . .
. . . . § 766.106(2)(a) (providing that “prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall . . .
. . . Stat. § 766.106. . . . Stat. § 766.106(l)-(3). . . . Stat. § 766.106. See Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. v. . . . Stat. § 766.106). . . . Stat. § 766.106. . . .
. . . Pri- or to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .
. . . F.S. 95.11(4)(b), 766.106, and 766.104(2). . . . surviving parents and children, but are not applicable to claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106 . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2007), the Boices served a notice of intent on the child . . . legislature distinguished between informal and formal discovery in a medical malpractice action, see § 766.106 . . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . .
. . . plaintiffs complaint for non-compliance with the medical malpractice presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . . as “a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . . dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint for failure to comply with the presuit screening process of section 766.106 . . .
. . . For example, a claim that a party did not comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106(2) . . .
. . . . § 766.106(2). . . .
. . . These cases involve whether or not the statute of limitations was tolled under chapter 766.106(4), a . . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .
. . . Section 766.106(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2002). . . . .
. . . According to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), the notice had the effect of tolling the time . . . Section 766.106(4) also provides that, if the defendant serves a notice of intent to terminate the negotiations . . . However, the trial judge evidently concluded that, because section 766.106(4) has the effect of “tolling . . .
. . . plaintiff in this medical malpractice action did not comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . .
. . . . § 766.106(2)(a). Dr. . . .
. . . The court found that Plaintiff had not complied with the statutory requirements of §§ 766.106 and 766.203 . . .
. . . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650(b)(3), which is applicable to the procedures prescribed by section 766.106 . . . suggesting that the issue of the Virgos’ compliance with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . . Virgo (the Virgos), had failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of section 766.106(2)( . . .
. . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .
. . . Stat. (1997); §§ 766.106(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), the statute of limitations is tolled during . . .
. . . Complaint constitute medical negligence by hospital personnel, that, therefore, pursuant to section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106(l)(a) defines a claim for medical malpractice as “a claim, arising out of the rendering . . . required to comply with the presuit notice and 90-day investigatory period as set forth in sections 766.106 . . . (2) and 766.106(3), Florida Statutes (2007), see Integrated Health Care Servs., Inc. v. . . . As such, the trial judge was incorrect in finding that presuit notice, under section 766.106(2), Florida . . .
. . . Porumbescus that the trial court failed to account for the ninety-day tolling period under section 766.106 . . . 766.106(4), which creates a tolling period following a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice . . . See § 766.106(3) Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . Section 766.106(4) provides: [DJuring the 90-day period, the statute of limitations is tolled as to all . . . By adding this additional 90-day period to the deadline from section 766.106(4), their complaint falls . . .
. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .
. . . certificate of counsel, failed to send a notice of intent to initiate litigation as required by section 766.106 . . . her response, Johnson conceded that she had not complied with the pre-suit requirements of sections 766.106 . . .
. . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . See id. § 766.106(3)(b)3. The plaintiff sought clarification on a point not material here. . . . The plaintiff begins with the observation that the defendants’ offer was made under subparagraph 766.106 . . .
. . . the permission of the insured, any offer of admission of liability and for arbitration pursuant to s. 766.106 . . . exclusive right to veto any offer for admission of liability and for arbitration made pursuant to s. 766.106 . . . He alleged violations of both the presuit investigation procedure pursuant to section 766.106 and violation . . .
. . . motion to dismiss for appellee’s failure to comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . . screening of blood donors by a blood bank be subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, provides that, prior to filing a suit for medical negligence, a . . . 766 from “medical malpractice” to “medical negligence,” most notably in the amendments to subsections 766.106 . . . (1) and (2), Florida Statutes. 766.106. . . .
. . . abuses shall be evidence of failure of that party to comply with the good faith requirements of section 766.106 . . . but shall be evidence of failure of that party to comply with the good faith requirements of section 766.106 . . .
. . . claimed that his insurance company failed to undertake the necessary investigation pursuant to section 766.106 . . . The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that neither section 766.106 nor section 627.4147, upon . . . Pursuant to section 766.106, Chicago had 90 days to conduct a presuit investigation of the claim. . . . He alleged violations of both the presuit investigation procedure pursuant to section 766.106 and violation . . . exclusive right to veto any offer for admission of liability and for arbitration made pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .
. . . medical malpractice complaint for failure to comply with the presuit discovery requirements of Section 766.106 . . . See § 766.106(3)(a). . . . See § 766.106(6)(a). . . . Additionally, section 766.106(7), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that “[f]ailure to cooperate on the . . . See § 766.106(3)(b). III. . . .
. . . .” § 766.106(l)(a); see J.B. v. Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola, 635 So.2d 945, 949 (Fla.1994). . . . determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . . Garcia’s claim thus arose “out of the rendering of ... medical care or services.” § 766.106(l)(a). . . .
. . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. . . .
. . . For example, section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2006), requires a medical malpractice claimant to notify . . .
. . . demonstrate that the causes of action alleged fall outside of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . .
. . . . § 766.106(l)(a). . . . . § 766.106(2). . . . Our analysis is entirely consistent with the medical malpractice definition provided in section 766.106 . . .
. . . granted because respondents did not individually serve him with a notice of intent pursuant to section 766.106 . . . Therefore, by noticing ECHIS, plaintiffs met the presuit notice requirement of section 766.106(2), Florida . . . When responding to initial requests for informal discovery pursuant to section 766.106 after the corroborating . . .
. . . The medical malpractice pre-suit notice requirement, found in section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2004 . . . This rule applies only to the procedures prescribed by section 766.106, Florida Statutes, for presuit . . . Both sections 400.0233(2) and 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, are worded substantially the same. . . . Section 766.106(2) states that: [PJrior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall . . . Because both section 400.0233(2), the nursing home pre-suit notice provision, and section 766.106(2), . . .
. . . affirmative defense, alleged that Quintanilla failed to comply with the pre-suit requirements under section 766.106 . . . Therefore, Quintanilla was required to comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106, had . . . Section 766.106(l)(a), defines a claim for medical negligence or medical malpractice as “a claim arising . . . for his cough, the actual act of serving the hot tea amounts to a medical service pursuant to section 766.106 . . . medical malpractice, but a claim for simple negligence that does not require compliance with section 766.106 . . .
. . . — Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .