766.203

Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by prospective parties.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

766.203 Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by prospective parties.—

(1) APPLICATION OF PRESUIT INVESTIGATION.—Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss. 766.204-766.206 shall apply to all medical negligence claims and defenses. This shall include:

(a) Rights of action under s. 768.19 and defenses thereto.

(b) Rights of action involving the state or its agencies or subdivisions, or the officers, employees, or agents thereof, pursuant to s. 768.28 and defenses thereto.

(2) PRESUIT INVESTIGATION BY CLAIMANT.—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:

(a) Any named defendant in the litigation was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and

(b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant.

Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the claimant’s submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(6), at the time the notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence.

(3) PRESUIT INVESTIGATION BY PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT.—Prior to issuing its response to the claimant’s notice of intent to initiate litigation, during the time period for response authorized pursuant to s. 766.106, the prospective defendant or the defendant’s insurer or self-insurer shall conduct an investigation as provided in s. 766.106(3) to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that:

(a) The defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and

(b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant.

Corroboration of lack of reasonable grounds for medical negligence litigation shall be provided with any response rejecting the claim by the defendant’s submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s. 766.202(6), at the time the response rejecting the claim is mailed, which statement shall corroborate reasonable grounds for lack of negligent injury sufficient to support the response denying negligent injury.

(4) PRESUIT MEDICAL EXPERT OPINION.—The medical expert opinions required by this section are subject to discovery. The opinions shall specify whether any previous opinion by the same medical expert has been disqualified and if so the name of the court and the case number in which the ruling was issued.

History.—s. 50, ch. 88-1; s. 26, ch. 88-277; s. 33, ch. 91-110; s. 113, ch. 92-33; s. 3, ch. 92-278; s. 60, ch. 2003-416; s. 154, ch. 2004-5.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 164 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D. (2018) fla · cites it 30× ““Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the [prospective plaintiff’s] submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s.”

Largie v. Gregorian (2005) fladistctapp · cites it 25× “This appeal involves the sufficiency of plaintiffs' pre-suit notice and affidavit to inform nurse Jessica Wang of "reasonable grounds" for a claim of medical negligence under Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Apostolico v. Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc. (2004) fladistctapp · cites it 15× “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Specifically, section 766.”

University of Miami v. Echarte (1993) fla · cites it 10× “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.”

Kukral v. Mekras (1996) fla · cites it 7× “" After completing the presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, the claimant must notify each prospective defendant "of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice.”

Duffy v. Brooker (1993) fladistctapp · cites it 13× “106(2) requires the claimant, after completing the presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, to notify each prospective defendant "of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice.”

Rell v. McCulla (2012) fladistctapp · cites it 12× “The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the McCullas had satisfied the presuit notice requirements set forth in section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2011).”

Cohen v. Dauphinee (1999) fla · cites it 13× “106 not to apply to the corroborating opinion requirement in section 766.203." Id. at 1290 . [5] If, by that statement, the Fourth District Court was indicating only that section 766.”

Baptist Medical Center of the Beaches, Inc. v. Rhodin (2010) fladistctapp · cites it 10× “Section 766.203 requires just that, not proof after a mini-trial of actual malpractice on the facts presented.”

Oliveros v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc. (2010) fladistctapp · cites it 9× “In granting the appellees’ motions to dismiss, the trial court determined that the appellants failed to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2006), by failing to submit a corroborating affidavit from a duly qualified medical expert.”

Edwards v. Sunrise Ophthalmology ASC, LLC (2013) fladistctapp · cites it 9× “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). The plaintiff must then “notify each prospective defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence.”

Tuyuana L. Morris, as Personal etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., Marianna etc. (2016) fladistctapp · cites it 9× “102(5). 1 The presuit medical expert opinion is subject to discovery.”

Show all 164 citing cases →

— 766.203(1) — 11 cases

Integrated Health Care Serv., Inc. v. Lang-Redway (2002) fla

Walker v. Virginia Ins. Reciprocal (2003) fla

Pavolini v. Bird (2000) fladistctapp

Solomon v. Well Care HMO, Inc. (2002) fladistctapp

Virginia Ins. Reciprocal v. Walker (2000) fladistctapp

— 766.203(2) — 81 cases

Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D. (2018) fla ““Corroboration of reasonable grounds to initiate medical negligence litigation shall be provided by the [prospective plaintiff’s] submission of a verified written medical expert opinion from a medical expert as defined in s.”

Apostolico v. Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc. (2004) fladistctapp “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Specifically, section 766.”

Largie v. Gregorian (2005) fladistctapp “This appeal involves the sufficiency of plaintiffs' pre-suit notice and affidavit to inform nurse Jessica Wang of "reasonable grounds" for a claim of medical negligence under Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Rell v. McCulla (2012) fladistctapp “The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the McCullas had satisfied the presuit notice requirements set forth in section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2011).”

University of Miami v. Echarte (1993) fla “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.”

— 766.203(2)(a) — 12 cases

Emma Gayle Weaver, etc. v. Stephen C. Myers, M.D. (2017) fla

Davis v. Karr (2019) fladistctapp

Maldonado v. EMSA Ltd. Partnership (1994) fladistctapp

Pavolini v. Bird (2000) fladistctapp

Community Blood Centers v. Damiano (1997) fladistctapp

— 766.203(2)(b) — 14 cases

Archer v. Maddux (1994) fladistctapp

Suarez v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. (1994) fladistctapp

Central Florida Regional Hosp. v. Hill (1998) fladistctapp

Royle v. Florida Hosp.-East Orlando (1996) fladistctapp

Edwards v. Sunrise Ophthalmology ASC, LLC (2013) fladistctapp “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). The plaintiff must then “notify each prospective defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence.”

— 766.203(3) — 16 cases

Duffy v. Brooker (1993) fladistctapp “106(2) requires the claimant, after completing the presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, to notify each prospective defendant "of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice.”

University of Miami v. Echarte (1993) fla “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.”

Simon Dockswell v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., etc. (2017) fla

MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER v. Herber (2008) fladistctapp

Fox v. McCaw Cellular Communications (1998) fladistctapp

— 766.203(3)(b) — 7 cases

Kukral v. Mekras (1996) fla “" After completing the presuit investigation pursuant to section 766.203 and prior to filing a claim for medical malpractice, the claimant must notify each prospective defendant "of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice.”

University of Miami v. Echarte (1993) fla “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.”

Franks v. Bowers (2013) fla

Williams v. Powers (1993) fladistctapp

Holden v. Bober (2010) fladistctapp

— 766.203(4) — 6 cases

Tuyuana L. Morris, as Personal etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., Marianna etc. (2016) fladistctapp “102(5). 1 The presuit medical expert opinion is subject to discovery.”

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center (2001) fladistctapp

Baptist Medical Center of the Beaches, Inc. v. Rhodin (2010) fladistctapp “Section 766.203 requires just that, not proof after a mini-trial of actual malpractice on the facts presented.”

Oliveros v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc. (2010) fladistctapp “In granting the appellees’ motions to dismiss, the trial court determined that the appellants failed to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.203(2), Florida Statutes (2006), by failing to submit a corroborating affidavit from a duly qualified medical expert.”

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.