Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 766.206 (2025)

Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by court.

✓ 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

766.206 Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by court.—

(1) After the completion of presuit investigation by the parties pursuant to s. 766.203 and any discovery pursuant to s. 766.106, any party may file a motion in the circuit court requesting the court to determine whether the opposing party’s claim or denial rests on a reasonable basis.

(2) If the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the claimant does not comply with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss. 766.201-766.212, including a review of the claim and a verified written medical expert opinion by an expert witness as defined in s. 766.202, or that the authorization accompanying the notice of intent required under s. 766.1065 is not completed in good faith by the claimant, the court shall dismiss the claim, and the person who mailed such notice of intent, whether the claimant or the claimant’s attorney, is personally liable for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred during the investigation and evaluation of the claim, including the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the defendant or the defendant’s insurer.

(3) If the court finds that the response mailed by a defendant rejecting the claim is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss. 766.201-766.212, including a review of the claim and a verified written medical expert opinion by an expert witness as defined in s. 766.202, the court shall strike the defendant’s pleading. The person who mailed such response, whether the defendant, the defendant’s insurer, or the defendant’s attorney, shall be personally liable for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred during the investigation and evaluation of the claim, including the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the claimant.

(4) If the court finds that an attorney for the claimant mailed notice of intent to initiate litigation without reasonable investigation, or filed a medical negligence claim without first mailing such notice of intent which complies with the reasonable investigation requirements, or if the court finds that an attorney for a defendant mailed a response rejecting the claim without reasonable investigation, the court shall submit its finding in the matter to The Florida Bar for disciplinary review of the attorney. Any attorney so reported three or more times within a 5-year period shall be reported to a circuit grievance committee acting under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If such committee finds probable cause to believe that an attorney has violated this section, such committee shall forward to the Supreme Court a copy of its finding.

(5)(a) If the court finds that the corroborating written medical expert opinion attached to any notice of claim or intent or to any response rejecting a claim lacked reasonable investigation or that the medical expert submitting the opinion did not meet the expert witness qualifications as set forth in s. 766.102(5), the court shall report the medical expert issuing such corroborating opinion to the Division of Medical Quality Assurance or its designee. If such medical expert is not a resident of the state, the division shall forward such report to the disciplining authority of that medical expert.

(b) The court shall refuse to consider the testimony or opinion attached to any notice of intent or to any response rejecting a claim of an expert who has been disqualified three times pursuant to this section.

History.—s. 53, ch. 88-1; s. 29, ch. 88-277; s. 35, ch. 91-110; s. 61, ch. 2003-416; s. 155, ch. 2004-5; s. 14, ch. 2011-233.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 92 cases (21 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 19× “From there, we turn to the trial court’s first basis for dismissal under section 766.206(2), which states that a medical malpractice claim shall be dismissed where the prospective medical malpractice plaintiff does not comply “with the reasonable investigation requirements” of…”

Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). · cites it 18× “Duffy and his medical malpractice insurer appeal a final order imposing sanctions upon the insurer under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1989).”

Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). · cites it 8× “Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed.”

Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to section 766.206, Florida Statutes (2005), Dr.”

Saunders v. Dickens, 103 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). · cites it 4× “Dickens’s pleadings under section 766.206, Florida Statutes, which governs presuit investigation of medical negligence claims; (2) defense counsel’s closing argument was improper and warrants a new trial; (8) the trial court erred in refusing to give a Letzter instruction; and…”

Ragoonanan v. Assocs. in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 619 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). · cites it 4× “§ 766.206, Fla. Stat. (1989). If the court finds the notice of intent to initiate litigation is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements, the court shall dismiss the claim.”

Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). · cites it 3× “106(6)] or a determination of the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' presuit investigation [ see § 766.206(2)]. No motion seeking a court ruling pursuant to these provisions was filed or heard below.”

Faber v. Wrobel, 673 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). · cites it 5× “NOTES [1] Section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (1991), provides, "[i]f the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the claimant is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss.”

Wolfsen v. Applegate, 619 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). · cites it 5× “Affirming the trial court's decision, this court said: When one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court must determine whether the opposing party's claim or denial "rests on a reasonable basis" and whether the notice of intent to sue or the response…”

Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Wirth, 49 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). · cites it 6× “[4] Rather, as explained *807 in Holden , the hearing to determine pre-suit compliance, provided for in section 766.206, Florida Statutes, may necessarily need to be an evidentiary hearing.”

Largie v. Gregorian, 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). · cites it 2× “See § 766.206(2), Fla. Stat. (2002) (authorizing dismissal of actions predicated on notices of intent not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.”

Lorraine Campbell & Charles Lamm v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “(2015) (“In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages.”

Show all 92 citing cases →

— 766.206(1) — 14 cases

Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). “Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed.”

Duffy v. Brooker, 614 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “Duffy and his medical malpractice insurer appeal a final order imposing sanctions upon the insurer under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1989).”

Graber v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Wolfsen v. Applegate, 619 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “Affirming the trial court's decision, this court said: When one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court must determine whether the opposing party's claim or denial "rests on a reasonable basis" and whether the notice of intent to sue or the response…”

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

— 766.206(2) — 41 cases

Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018). “From there, we turn to the trial court’s first basis for dismissal under section 766.206(2), which states that a medical malpractice claim shall be dismissed where the prospective medical malpractice plaintiff does not comply “with the reasonable investigation requirements” of…”

Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). “Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed.”

Largie v. Gregorian, 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). “See § 766.206(2), Fla. Stat. (2002) (authorizing dismissal of actions predicated on notices of intent not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of sections 766.”

Faber v. Wrobel, 673 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). “NOTES [1] Section 766.206(2), Florida Statutes (1991), provides, "[i]f the court finds that the notice of intent to initiate litigation mailed by the claimant is not in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss.”

— 766.206(3) — 13 cases

Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996). “Under section 766.206, Florida Statutes (1991), since no reasonable investigation was conducted, the plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed.”

Karr v. Sellers, 668 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Hoeltzell v. Erenstoft, 985 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Damus v. Parvez, 556 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

— 766.206(4) — 1 case

— 766.206(5)(a) — 5 cases

Stebilla v. Mussallem, 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). “106(6)] or a determination of the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' presuit investigation [ see § 766.206(2)]. No motion seeking a court ruling pursuant to these provisions was filed or heard below.”

Baptist Med. Ctr. of the Beaches, Inc. v. Rhodin, 40 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Cohen v. Dauphinee, 739 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1999).

Barclay v. Susac, 780 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

— 766.206(5)(b) — 1 case

— 766.206(8) — 1 case

Wolford v. Boone, 874 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

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.