Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 766.205 (2025)
Presuit discovery of medical negligence claims and defenses.
✓ 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
766.205 Presuit discovery of medical negligence claims and defenses.—
(1) Upon the completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203, which investigation has resulted in the mailing of a notice of intent to initiate litigation in accordance with s. 766.106, corroborated by medical expert opinion that there exist reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury, each party shall provide to the other party reasonable access to information within its possession or control in order to facilitate evaluation of the claim.
(2) Such access shall be provided without formal discovery, pursuant to s. 766.106, and failure to so provide shall be grounds for dismissal of any applicable claim or defense ultimately asserted.
(3) Failure of any party to comply with this section shall constitute evidence of failure of that party to comply with good faith discovery requirements and shall waive the requirement of written medical corroboration by the party seeking production.
(4) No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated solely by the presuit investigation process is discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by the opposing party. All participants, including, but not limited to, hospitals and other medical facilities, and the officers, directors, trustees, employees, and agents thereof, physicians, investigators, witnesses, and employees or associates of the defendant, are immune from civil liability arising from participation in the presuit investigation process. Such immunity from civil liability includes immunity for any acts by a medical facility in connection with providing medical records pursuant to s. 766.204(1) regardless of whether the medical facility is or is not a defendant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018).
Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018). “205(1) requires that, after the completion of the presuit investigation, each party to a medical malpractice action “shall provide to the other party reasonable access to information within its possession or control in order to facilitate evaluation of the claim.”
Cohen v. Dauphinee, 739 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1999). “Section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes (1995), expressly provides: No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated by the presuit investigation process is discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by the opposing party.”
Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). “" And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exists reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury.”
Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). “" § 766.205(1), Fla.Stat. (1995). The unreasonable failure of any party to comply with informal discovery may justify dismissal of that party's claims or defenses.”
Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1994). “Ostendorf filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that Kozel failed to comply with section 766.205, Florida Statutes (1989).”
Tuyuana L. Morris, as Pers. etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., Marianna etc., 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “” § 766.205(2), Florida Statutes. Likewise, section 766.”
Vincent v. Kaufman, 855 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). “After hearing argument, the court dismissed Vincent's case with prejudice on the grounds that dismissal was mandatory under section 766.205, Florida Statutes, if there was a failure to comply with presuit requirements.”
Scalice v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare, 120 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). “In this medical malpractice action, the parties raise three issues on appeal, two of which merit discussion and reversal— whether the trial court properly interpreted section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes (2010), concerning admissibility of pre-suit affidavits, and whether those…”
Ragoonanan v. Assocs. in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). “We also reject as a ground for dismissal the hospital's claim that the Ragoonanans failed to cooperate in good faith with presuit discovery, as required by section 766.205, Florida Statutes. Failure to comply with presuit discovery does not mandate dismissal of a claim.”
Bery v. Fahel, 88 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “At a subsequent hearing, the plaintiffs’ counsel objected on the basis of privilege, citing to section 766.205(4), which provides: “No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated solely by the pre-suit investigation process is discoverable or…”
Whealton v. Marshall, 631 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “Petitioner argues that the documents are protected from discovery under the presuit investigation statute, section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes, as well as the work product privilege.”
Davis v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., 654 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). “" And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exists reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury.”
— 766.205(1) — 9 cases
Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018). “205(1) requires that, after the completion of the presuit investigation, each party to a medical malpractice action “shall provide to the other party reasonable access to information within its possession or control in order to facilitate evaluation of the claim.”
Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). “" § 766.205(1), Fla.Stat. (1995). The unreasonable failure of any party to comply with informal discovery may justify dismissal of that party's claims or defenses.”
Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). “" And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exists reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury.”
Davis v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., 654 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). “" And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exists reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury.”
Largie v. Gregorian, 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
— 766.205(2) — 5 cases
Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018). “205(1) requires that, after the completion of the presuit investigation, each party to a medical malpractice action “shall provide to the other party reasonable access to information within its possession or control in order to facilitate evaluation of the claim.”
Tuyuana L. Morris, as Pers. etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., Marianna etc., 189 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “” § 766.205(2), Florida Statutes. Likewise, section 766.”
Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). “" And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exists reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury.”
Torrey v. Leesburg Reg'l Med. Ctr., 796 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Karr v. Sellers, 668 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
— 766.205(3) — 2 cases
Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). “" And § 766.205(1) specifically provides that the medical opinion need only corroborate that "there exists reasonable grounds for a claim of negligent injury.”
Wilkinson v. Golden, 630 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
— 766.205(4) — 10 cases
Cohen v. Dauphinee, 739 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1999). “Section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes (1995), expressly provides: No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated by the presuit investigation process is discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by the opposing party.”
Scalice v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare, 120 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). “In this medical malpractice action, the parties raise three issues on appeal, two of which merit discussion and reversal— whether the trial court properly interpreted section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes (2010), concerning admissibility of pre-suit affidavits, and whether those…”
Bery v. Fahel, 88 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “At a subsequent hearing, the plaintiffs’ counsel objected on the basis of privilege, citing to section 766.205(4), which provides: “No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated solely by the pre-suit investigation process is discoverable or…”
Whealton v. Marshall, 631 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “Petitioner argues that the documents are protected from discovery under the presuit investigation statute, section 766.205(4), Florida Statutes, as well as the work product privilege.”
Williams v. Powers, 619 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
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.