Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 766.203 (2025)

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

✓ 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

766.203 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., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018). · 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, 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). · 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 Reg'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 871 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · cites it 15× “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Specifically, section 766.”

Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993). · cites it 10× “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.”

Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). · 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, 614 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). · 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, 101 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). · 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, 739 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1999). · 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 Med. Ctr. of the Beaches, Inc. v. Rhodin, 40 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · 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 Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 45 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). · 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, 134 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). · 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 Pers. etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., Marianna etc., 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). · 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, 840 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2002).

Walker v. Virginia Ins. Reciprocal, 842 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2003).

Pavolini v. Bird, 769 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Solomon v. Well Care HMO, Inc., 822 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Virginia Ins. Reciprocal v. Walker, 765 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

— 766.203(2) — 81 cases

Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018). ““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 Reg'l Health Care Sys., Inc., 871 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Specifically, section 766.”

Largie v. Gregorian, 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). “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, 101 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “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).”

Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993). “§ 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., 229 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 2017).

Davis v. Karr, 264 So. 3d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

Maldonado v. EMSA Ltd. P'ship, 645 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Pavolini v. Bird, 769 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Cmty. Blood Centers v. Damiano, 697 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

— 766.203(2)(b) — 14 cases

Archer v. Maddux, 645 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Suarez v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 634 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Cent. Florida Reg'l Hosp. v. Hill, 721 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Royle v. Florida Hosp.-East Orlando, 679 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Edwards v. Sunrise Ophthalmology ASC, LLC, 134 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). “§ 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, 614 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “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.”

Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993). “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.”

Simon Dockswell v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., etc., 210 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2017).

Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr. v. Herber, 984 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc'ns, 745 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

— 766.203(3)(b) — 7 cases

Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). “" 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.”

Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993). “§ 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). Section 766.”

Franks v. Bowers, 116 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 2013).

Williams v. Powers, 619 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Holden v. Bober, 39 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

— 766.203(4) — 6 cases

Tuyuana L. Morris, as Pers. etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., Marianna etc., 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “102(5). 1 The presuit medical expert opinion is subject to discovery.”

Torrey v. Leesburg Reg'l Med. Ctr., 796 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Baptist Med. Ctr. of the Beaches, Inc. v. Rhodin, 40 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “Section 766.203 requires just that, not proof after a mini-trial of actual malpractice on the facts presented.”

Oliveros v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 45 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). “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.