Florida Statute 766.102 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 766
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND RELATED MATTERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 766.102

766.102 Medical negligence; standards of recovery; expert witness.—

(1) In any action for recovery of damages based on the death or personal injury of any person in which it is alleged that such death or injury resulted from the negligence of a health care provider as defined in s. 766.202(4), the claimant shall have the burden of proving by the greater weight of evidence that the alleged actions of the health care provider represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care for that health care provider. The prevailing professional standard of care for a given health care provider shall be that level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers.

(2)(a) If the injury is claimed to have resulted from the negligent affirmative medical intervention of the health care provider, the claimant must, in order to prove a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care, show that the injury was not within the necessary or reasonably foreseeable results of the surgical, medicinal, or diagnostic procedure constituting the medical intervention, if the intervention from which the injury is alleged to have resulted was carried out in accordance with the prevailing professional standard of care by a reasonably prudent similar health care provider.

(b) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only when the medical intervention was undertaken with the informed consent of the patient in compliance with the provisions of s. 766.103.

(3)(a) As used in this subsection, the term:

1. “Insurer” means any public or private insurer, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

2. “Reimbursement determination” means an insurer’s determination of the amount that the insurer will reimburse a health care provider for health care services.

3. “Reimbursement policies” means an insurer’s policies and procedures governing its decisions regarding health insurance coverage and method of payment and the data upon which such policies and procedures are based, including, but not limited to, data from national research groups and other patient safety data as defined in s. 766.1016.

(b) The existence of a medical injury does not create any inference or presumption of negligence against a health care provider, and the claimant must maintain the burden of proving that an injury was proximately caused by a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care by the health care provider. Any records, policies, or testimony of an insurer’s reimbursement policies or reimbursement determination regarding the care provided to the plaintiff is not admissible as evidence in any medical negligence action. However, the discovery of the presence of a foreign body, such as a sponge, clamp, forceps, surgical needle, or other paraphernalia commonly used in surgical, examination, or diagnostic procedures, shall be prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the health care provider.

(4) The Legislature is cognizant of the changing trends and techniques for the delivery of health care in this state and the discretion that is inherent in the diagnosis, care, and treatment of patients by different health care providers. The failure of a health care provider to order, perform, or administer supplemental diagnostic tests shall not be actionable if the health care provider acted in good faith and with due regard for the prevailing professional standard of care.

(5) A person may not give expert testimony concerning the prevailing professional standard of care unless the person is a health care provider who holds an active and valid license and conducts a complete review of the pertinent medical records and meets the following criteria:

(a) If the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a specialist, the expert witness must:

1. Specialize in the same specialty as the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered; and

2. Have devoted professional time during the 3 years immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the action to:

a. The active clinical practice of, or consulting with respect to, the same specialty;

b. Instruction of students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency or clinical research program in the same specialty; or

c. A clinical research program that is affiliated with an accredited health professional school or accredited residency or clinical research program in the same specialty.

(b) If the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a general practitioner, the expert witness must have devoted professional time during the 5 years immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the action to:

1. The active clinical practice or consultation as a general practitioner;

2. The instruction of students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency program in the general practice of medicine; or

3. A clinical research program that is affiliated with an accredited medical school or teaching hospital and that is in the general practice of medicine.

(c) If the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered is a health care provider other than a specialist or a general practitioner, the expert witness must have devoted professional time during the 3 years immediately preceding the date of the occurrence that is the basis for the action to:

1. The active clinical practice of, or consulting with respect to, the same or similar health profession as the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered;

2. The instruction of students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency program in the same or similar health profession in which the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered; or

3. A clinical research program that is affiliated with an accredited medical school or teaching hospital and that is in the same or similar health profession as the health care provider against whom or on whose behalf the testimony is offered.

(6) A physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 who qualifies as an expert witness under subsection (5) and who, by reason of active clinical practice or instruction of students, has knowledge of the applicable standard of care for nurses, nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified registered nurse midwives, physician assistants, or other medical support staff may give expert testimony in a medical negligence action with respect to the standard of care of such medical support staff.

(7) Notwithstanding subsection (5), in a medical negligence action against a hospital, a health care facility, or medical facility, a person may give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of care as to administrative and other nonclinical issues if the person has substantial knowledge, by virtue of his or her training and experience, concerning the standard of care among hospitals, health care facilities, or medical facilities of the same type as the hospital, health care facility, or medical facility whose acts or omissions are the subject of the testimony and which are located in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.

(8) If a health care provider described in subsection (5), subsection (6), or subsection (7) is providing evaluation, treatment, or diagnosis for a condition that is not within his or her specialty, a specialist trained in the evaluation, treatment, or diagnosis for that condition shall be considered a similar health care provider.

(9)(a) In any action for damages involving a claim of negligence against a physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460 providing emergency medical services in a hospital emergency department, the court shall admit expert medical testimony only from physicians, osteopathic physicians, podiatric physicians, and chiropractic physicians who have had substantial professional experience within the preceding 5 years while assigned to provide emergency medical services in a hospital emergency department.

(b) For the purposes of this subsection:

1. The term “emergency medical services” means those medical services required for the immediate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, could lead to serious physical or mental disability or death.

2. “Substantial professional experience” shall be determined by the custom and practice of the manner in which emergency medical coverage is provided in hospital emergency departments in the same or similar localities where the alleged negligence occurred.

(10) In any action alleging medical negligence, an expert witness may not testify on a contingency fee basis.

(11) Any attorney who proffers a person as an expert witness pursuant to this section must certify that such person has not been found guilty of fraud or perjury in any jurisdiction.

(12) If a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 or a dentist licensed under chapter 466 is the party against whom, or on whose behalf, expert testimony about the prevailing professional standard of care is offered, the expert witness must be licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, or chapter 466 or possess a valid expert witness certificate issued under s. 458.3175, s. 459.0066, or s. 466.005.

(13) A health care provider’s failure to comply with or breach of any federal requirement is not admissible as evidence in any medical negligence case in this state.

History.—s. 12, ch. 76-260; s. 8, ch. 77-64; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 10, ch. 85-175; s. 78, ch. 88-1; s. 30, ch. 91-110; s. 1149, ch. 97-102; ss. 229, 296, ch. 98-166; s. 48, ch. 2003-416; s. 153, ch. 2004-5; s. 10, ch. 2011-233; s. 2, ch. 2013-108.

Note.—Former s. 768.45.

F.S. 766.102 on Google Scholar

F.S. 766.102 on CourtListener

Amendments to 766.102

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 766.102

Total Results: 192

Williams v. Oken

62 So. 3d 1129, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 202, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1027, 2011 WL 1675242

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 5, 2011 | Docket: 2360888

Cited 130 times | Published

result, Williams had failed to comply with section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2005), because he failed

Weinstock v. Groth

629 So. 2d 835, 1993 WL 528465

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 1993 | Docket: 372523

Cited 50 times | Published

medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102 applied to the active tortfeasor the agent

Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, Inc.

601 So. 2d 1184, 1992 WL 110906

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 28, 1992 | Docket: 1710931

Cited 39 times | Published

(repealed 1986). As the Second District noted, section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1989), defines the standards

Pate v. Threlkel

661 So. 2d 278, 1995 WL 424171

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 20, 1995 | Docket: 401052

Cited 35 times | Published

the prevailing standard of care set forth in section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1989), a reasonably prudent

Linn v. Fossum

946 So. 2d 1032, 2006 WL 3093186

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2006 | Docket: 1771136

Cited 25 times | Published

prevailing professional standard of care under section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2005), does not permit

Fassy v. Crowley

884 So. 2d 359, 2004 WL 2008478

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2004 | Docket: 1281861

Cited 22 times | Published

negligence standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1). Following the analysis set forth in Integrated

NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough

590 So. 2d 439, 1991 WL 178109

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 13, 1991 | Docket: 1512682

Cited 22 times | Published

of care for medical negligence described in section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1989). Accordingly, the

Gross v. Department of Health

819 So. 2d 997, 2002 WL 1389304

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2002 | Docket: 1750101

Cited 20 times | Published

reasonably prudent similar health care providers." § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). [3] In the past, the hearings

Auster v. Strax Breast Cancer Institute

649 So. 2d 883, 1995 WL 25297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 1995 | Docket: 1693735

Cited 20 times | Published

Statutes, (1985), is currently codified at section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (1993). They both provide:

Patricia Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

772 F.3d 1225, 2014 A.M.C. 2710, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21375, 2014 WL 5802293

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 10, 2014 | Docket: 2595147

Cited 19 times | Published

hospital setting”); cf. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 766.102 (2013) (defining standard of care in medical malpractice

Richard DeLisle v. Crane Co.

258 So. 3d 1219

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 15, 2018 | Docket: 8030090

Cited 18 times | Published

2011-233, section 10, Laws of Florida, creating section 766.102(12), Florida Statutes (2012), which pertains

Vause v. Bay Medical Center

687 So. 2d 258, 1996 WL 738386

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1996 | Docket: 1718860

Cited 16 times | Published

took occasion to emphasize the provisions of section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1989) defining the legal

Liles v. PIA Medfield, Inc.

681 So. 2d 711, 1995 WL 642743

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 1995 | Docket: 1722258

Cited 15 times | Published

medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1). Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835 (Fla

Archer v. Maddux

645 So. 2d 544, 1994 WL 630814

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 14, 1994 | Docket: 1222892

Cited 15 times | Published

rise to a presumption of negligence under section 766.102(4), Florida Statutes (1993), which provides:

Swain v. Curry

595 So. 2d 168, 1992 WL 34638

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 1992 | Docket: 1298823

Cited 15 times | Published

for members of his profession, as defined by Section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1988) by failing to properly

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01

35 So. 3d 666, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 302

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2010 | Docket: 1646266

Cited 14 times | Published

USE FOR 402.4a 1. See F.S. 766.102. Instruction 402.4a is derived from F.S. 766.102(1) and is intended to

Oliveros v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

45 So. 3d 873, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12923, 2010 WL 3447253

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 2010 | Docket: 2525062

Cited 13 times | Published

witness as set forth in section 766.102. See Holden, 39 So.3d at 399. Section 766.102(9)(a) defines an expert

South Miami Hospital, Inc. v. Perez

38 So. 3d 809, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8643, 2010 WL 2382569

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2010 | Docket: 1658651

Cited 13 times | Published

forth in section 766.102(1)...." Tenet S. Fla. Health Sys., 991 So.2d at 399. Section 766.102 provides

Apostolico v. Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc.

871 So. 2d 283, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3847, 2004 WL 587660

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2004 | Docket: 1300574

Cited 13 times | Published

support a claim for medical negligence. See also § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) ("any action for recovery

Integrated Health Care Serv., Inc. v. Lang-Redway

840 So. 2d 974, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1030, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 2591, 2002 WL 31769252

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2002 | Docket: 1748206

Cited 13 times | Published

other "health care provider" as a defendant. See § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (citing § 768.50(2)(b),

FORT WALTON BEACH MED. CENTER v. Dingler

697 So. 2d 575

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 5, 1997 | Docket: 1776890

Cited 13 times | Published

considered himself a "medical expert" as defined by section 766.102(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes (1991). Respondents

Michael Clare, M.D. v. Lynch

220 So. 3d 1258, 2017 WL 2664320, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8924

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2017 | Docket: 6078176

Cited 12 times | Published

Lynch did not satisfy the requirements of section 766.102(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), we must grant

Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Dumigan

151 So. 3d 1282, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20157, 2014 WL 6990548

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2014 | Docket: 60244423

Cited 12 times | Published

medical negligence standard of care found in section 766.102(7), Florida Statutes (2013); and (3) the trial

Baptist Medical Center of the Beaches, Inc. v. Rhodin

40 So. 3d 112, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10454, 2010 WL 2795380

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2010 | Docket: 1666945

Cited 12 times | Published

published in journals and academic texts. Section 766.102(5), Florida Statutes (2009), as referenced

Corbo v. Garcia

949 So. 2d 366, 2007 WL 624722

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2007 | Docket: 1720045

Cited 12 times | Published

negligence standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1)." Fassy, 884 So.2d at 364. "The test for

Tenet St. Mary's Inc. v. Serratore

869 So. 2d 729, 2004 WL 736435

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 7, 2004 | Docket: 1175357

Cited 12 times | Published

of action for *731 medical negligence under section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2001); therefore, the trial

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center

769 So. 2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 911, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2040, 2000 WL 1588051

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2000 | Docket: 1476642

Cited 12 times | Published

filing of the notice of intent required under section 766.102(6) tolls the limitations period. Section 766

Sova Drugs, Inc. v. Barnes

661 So. 2d 393, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10641, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2304

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1995 | Docket: 532412

Cited 12 times | Published

a case of first impression in this state. Section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1993) sets out the standards

Haas v. Zaccaria

659 So. 2d 1130, 1995 WL 455437

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1995 | Docket: 1462212

Cited 12 times | Published

the court refused to instruct the jury on section 766.102(4) Florida Statutes (1993). The jury returned

Largie v. Gregorian

913 So. 2d 635, 2005 WL 1631086

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 13, 2005 | Docket: 1698277

Cited 11 times | Published

qualified to opine as to a nurse practitioner. See § 766.102(6), Fla. Stat. (2004) (providing that as to a

Feifer v. Galen of Florida, Inc.

685 So. 2d 882, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2406

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 8, 1996 | Docket: 1415670

Cited 11 times | Published

itself a health care provider for purposes of section 766.102, it may be vicariously liable under that higher

Torres v. Sullivan

903 So. 2d 1064, 2005 WL 1521251

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2005 | Docket: 2514899

Cited 10 times | Published

reasonably prudent similar health care providers. See § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The standard of practice

Kenyon v. Miller

756 So. 2d 133, 2000 WL 227971

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 2000 | Docket: 471076

Cited 10 times | Published

is prima facie evidence of negligence under section 766.102(4), Florida Statutes (1993).[2] We disagree

Citron v. Shell

689 So. 2d 1288, 1997 WL 133789

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1997 | Docket: 1477418

Cited 10 times | Published

in this court names only the father. [2] See § 766.102(1), Fla.Stat.(1995) ("In any action for recovery

Goldman v. HALIFAX MEDICAL CTR., INC.

662 So. 2d 367, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9715, 1995 WL 544149

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 1995 | Docket: 1683410

Cited 10 times | Published

medical negligence standard of care described in section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1989) applies to the active

Quintanilla v. Coral Gables Hospital, Inc.

941 So. 2d 468, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 18333, 2006 WL 3078909

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 2006 | Docket: 1523660

Cited 9 times | Published

negligence standard of care, as set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2005),[1] in order to

Gelsthorpe v. Weinstein

897 So. 2d 504, 2005 WL 473915

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2005 | Docket: 1735386

Cited 9 times | Published

medical conditions at issue in the case. See § 766.102(5)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) (setting forth requirements

ANESTHESIOLOGY CARE CONSULTANTS v. Kretzer

802 So. 2d 346, 2001 WL 1189013

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2001 | Docket: 1698942

Cited 9 times | Published

fell below the appropriate standard of care. See § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (1995); Cohen v. Burger, 769 So.2d

Sanderson v. Eckerd Corp.

780 So. 2d 930, 2001 WL 109105

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2001 | Docket: 1298734

Cited 9 times | Published

465.002, 766.101(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). [3] § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). [4] See Union Park Memorial

Lake Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Clarke

768 So. 2d 1251, 2000 WL 1528020

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2000 | Docket: 474360

Cited 9 times | Published

cause of action for medical negligence under section 766.102, we agree with the trial court that the complaint

Alford v. G. Pierce Woods Memorial Hosp.

621 So. 2d 1380, 1993 WL 247134

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 7, 1993 | Docket: 1677754

Cited 9 times | Published

Florida Evidence § 702.1, at 468 (1992). Thus, section 766.102(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), restricts the

Tuyuana L. Morris, etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D.

252 So. 3d 1143

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 2018 | Docket: 7813516

Cited 8 times | Published

witness as set forth in s. 766.102." Section 766.102 sets forth requirements for testifying experts

Joseph v. University Behavioral LLC

71 So. 3d 913, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15862, 2011 WL 5108524

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 2011 | Docket: 60303168

Cited 8 times | Published

medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1).2 The fact that a wrongful act occurs in

Holden v. Bober

39 So. 3d 396, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9131, 2010 WL 2507279

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2010 | Docket: 1923934

Cited 8 times | Published

requirements of an expert witness as set forth under section 766.102. *400 After the presuit investigation is completed

Estate of Rotell Ex Rel. Rotell v. Kuehnle

38 So. 3d 783, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7735, 2010 WL 2178581

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 2010 | Docket: 2409449

Cited 8 times | Published

similar and reasonably careful psychologists? See § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1998). The plaintiffs’ theory

Pagan v. SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HOSP. BD.

884 So. 2d 257, 2004 WL 1809862

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2004 | Docket: 1281834

Cited 8 times | Published

reasonably careful physician would provide. See § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 4

O'KEEFE v. Orea

731 So. 2d 680, 1998 WL 5394

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 12, 1998 | Docket: 1408959

Cited 8 times | Published

negligence standard of recovery is set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes, which states in part:

Broadway v. Bay Hospital, Inc.

638 So. 2d 176, 1994 WL 257045

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 1994 | Docket: 1652572

Cited 8 times | Published

professional standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes. The test for determining

Catron v. ROGER BOHN, DC, PA

580 So. 2d 814, 1991 WL 80036

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 15, 1991 | Docket: 1716906

Cited 8 times | Published

judge concluded that under the terms *816 of section 766.102(2)(a), (b), and (c), Florida Statutes (Supp

LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER v. Allen

944 So. 2d 541, 2006 WL 3780714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 27, 2006 | Docket: 1649288

Cited 7 times | Published

negligence standard of care established in section 766.102(1). To conclude, Allen did not allege that

Goldfarb v. Urciuoli

858 So. 2d 397, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 2003 | Docket: 183167

Cited 7 times | Published

that it is incorporated by reference into section 766.102(1)." Weinstock, 629 So.2d at 837 n. 1.

Porter v. Rosenberg

650 So. 2d 79, 1995 WL 1636

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1995 | Docket: 1703121

Cited 7 times | Published

actions for damages resulting from negligence, section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1993), courts of this state

Riggenbach v. Rhodes

267 So. 3d 551

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2019 | Docket: 64709237

Cited 6 times | Published

similar specialty " as the defendant doctor. § 766.102(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added). The

Edwards v. Simon

961 So. 2d 973, 2007 WL 1687768

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2007 | Docket: 1515764

Cited 6 times | Published

reasonably prudent similar health care providers." § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Standard of care is a legal

State v. Presidential Women's Center

707 So. 2d 1145, 1998 WL 64072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 15, 1998 | Docket: 1259716

Cited 6 times | Published

consent which has essentially been codified in section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1995). Parikh, 493 So.2d

Correa v. Robertson

693 So. 2d 619, 1997 WL 133934

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1997 | Docket: 435346

Cited 6 times | Published

section 768.50(2)(b) have been incorporated into section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (1991).

Cenatus v. Naples Community Hosp., Inc.

689 So. 2d 302, 1997 WL 14220

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1997 | Docket: 1477236

Cited 6 times | Published

in actions against emergency room doctors. Section 766.102(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1988), requires that

Pevsner v. Frederick

656 So. 2d 262, 1995 WL 366340

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 1995 | Docket: 1683780

Cited 6 times | Published

and 766.102, Fla. Stat. (1993). Note that section 766.102(6)(c) does not directly require the testimony

The National Deaf Academy, LLC, etc. v. Denise Townes, etc.

242 So. 3d 303

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2018 | Docket: 6376661

Cited 5 times | Published

care. See generally id. § 766.102. Just last year, we concluded that through chapter

Joseph S. Chirillo, Jr., M.D. v. Robert Granicz, etc.

199 So. 3d 246, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 345, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 1908, 2016 WL 4493536

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2016 | Docket: 4416253

Cited 5 times | Published

3d at 546. Relying on Florida case law and section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2008), the Second District

Oken v. Williams

23 So. 3d 140, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14590, 2009 WL 3103853

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2009 | Docket: 1180414

Cited 5 times | Published

satisfy the presuit requirement outlined in section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2007). Specifically, petitioners

Tenet South Florida Health Systems v. Jackson

991 So. 2d 396, 2008 WL 4224382

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2008 | Docket: 1725036

Cited 5 times | Published

negligence standard of care, as set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2007), in order to prove

Olsten Health Services, Inc. v. Cody

979 So. 2d 1221, 2008 WL 1883565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 2008 | Docket: 1714134

Cited 5 times | Published

requested instruction was patterned after section 766.102(4), Florida Statutes (1999),[2] which provides

Welker v. Southern Baptist Hosp. of Florida, Inc.

864 So. 2d 1178, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 54, 2004 WL 34512

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2004 | Docket: 1727646

Cited 5 times | Published

negligence standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1)." Integrated Health Care Servs., Inc. v

Bratt Ex Rel. Bratt v. Laskas

845 So. 2d 964, 2003 WL 21180087

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2003 | Docket: 1728702

Cited 5 times | Published

health care provider" within the meaning of section 766.102(2), Florida Statutes (1995). Where a defendant

Moyer v. Reynolds

780 So. 2d 205, 2001 WL 85521

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 2, 2001 | Docket: 1298178

Cited 5 times | Published

had already been filed.[3] The provisions of section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1995) that require the claimant

O'Shea v. Phillips

746 So. 2d 1105, 1999 WL 741115

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 1999 | Docket: 1714974

Cited 5 times | Published

Pensacola, 635 So.2d 945, 949 (Fla.1994). Section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (1997), establishes the

Meyer v. Caruso

731 So. 2d 118, 1999 WL 235470

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1999 | Docket: 1733808

Cited 5 times | Published

Singer did not satisfy the requirements of section 766.102 because "he does not treat these cases, does

Kelley v. Rice

670 So. 2d 1094, 1996 WL 124682

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 1996 | Docket: 1245835

Cited 5 times | Published

itself a health care provider for purposes of section 766.102, it may be vicariously liable under that higher

In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code

210 So. 3d 1231

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2017 | Docket: 60294194

Cited 4 times | Published

changes to the Florida Evidence Code and to section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2012). We have jurisdiction

Plantz v. John

170 So. 3d 822, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3868, 2015 WL 1540230

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 2015 | Docket: 60249516

Cited 4 times | Published

providing emergency medical services under section 766.102(9). He also alleged that Dr. Dellerson did

Granicz v. Chirillo

147 So. 3d 544, 2014 WL 626586, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2246

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2014 | Docket: 60243273

Cited 4 times | Published

providers.’ ” Sweet, 932 So.2d at 368 (quoting § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2004)); see also Perez v. United

Palms West Hospital Ltd. Partnership v. Burns

83 So. 3d 785, 2011 WL 5964360, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18986

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2011 | Docket: 60306501

Cited 4 times | Published

under the Florida Medical Malpractice Act. See § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (2009). We find that *787this was

Estate of McCall v. United States

663 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95302, 2009 WL 3163183

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2009 | Docket: 879550

Cited 4 times | Published

the greater weight of the evidence." Fla. Stat. § 766.102(1). By statute, "[t]he prevailing professional

Bohannon v. SHANDS TEACHING HOSP.

983 So. 2d 717, 2008 WL 2338516

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2008 | Docket: 1684701

Cited 4 times | Published

medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1)." In this amended complaint, the plaintiffs/appellants

Sweet v. Sheehan

932 So. 2d 365, 2006 WL 739775

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 2006 | Docket: 1285542

Cited 4 times | Published

accordance with the relevant standard of care). Section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2004), codifies this

Goss v. Permenter

827 So. 2d 285, 2002 WL 1939941

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2002 | Docket: 1360574

Cited 4 times | Published

of care of an emergency medicine physician. Section 766.102(6)(a) provides that in malpractice actions

Franklin v. Public Health Trust

759 So. 2d 703, 2000 WL 390284

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 19, 2000 | Docket: 2523980

Cited 4 times | Published

care of emergency room physicians pursuant to Section 766.102(6)(a)(b), Florida Statutes (1997).[1] The court

Stewart v. Price

718 So. 2d 205, 1998 WL 422317

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1998 | Docket: 1515133

Cited 4 times | Published

satisfy the expert witness requirements of section 766.102(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). For the reasons

Patino v. Einhorn

670 So. 2d 1179, 1996 WL 149028

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 3, 1996 | Docket: 30844

Cited 4 times | Published

this purpose because it is referred to in section 766.102(1), Fla.Stat. (1995). See Weinstock v. Groth

Maldonado v. EMSA Ltd. Partnership

645 So. 2d 86, 1994 WL 617187

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1994 | Docket: 1222898

Cited 4 times | Published

expert." Contrary to defendants' contention, section 766.102(6), Florida Statutes (1989), does not delineate

Doe v. HCA HEALTH SERV. OF FLORIDA

640 So. 2d 1177, 1994 WL 380919

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 1994 | Docket: 1719122

Cited 4 times | Published

394.451-394.4789, Fla. Stat. (1991). [2] See § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1991).

Ruby Saunders, etc. v. Willis Dickens, M.D.

151 So. 3d 434, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 494, 2014 WL 3361813, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 2153

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2014 | Docket: 400979

Cited 3 times | Published

within the standard of professional care. See § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (2013). The standard of professional

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

132 So. 3d 786, 2014 WL 289984

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 2014 | Docket: 401476

Cited 3 times | Published

standard of care for that health care provider.” § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). And the victims of this

Olesky v. Stapleton

123 So. 3d 592, 2013 WL 3835836, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11737

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 26, 2013 | Docket: 60235116

Cited 3 times | Published

tools, including examinations, had been used. See § 766.102(4), Fla. Stat. (2011). To require testimony based

Gonzalez v. Tracy

994 So. 2d 402, 2008 WL 4643122

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 2008 | Docket: 1666851

Cited 3 times | Published

fasciitis. On October 2, 2006, pursuant to section 766.102, Gonzalez served Dr. Tracy and Westchester

SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSP. OF FLORIDA v. Ashe

948 So. 2d 889, 2007 WL 412431

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2007 | Docket: 1769676

Cited 3 times | Published

standard of medical care, which is required under section 766.102(1)."); Garcia v. Psychiatric Insts. of Am.

Linn v. Fossum

894 So. 2d 974, 2004 WL 2330812

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2004 | Docket: 1768465

Cited 3 times | Published

proper standard of medical care. According to section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes, the prevailing standard

Hughes v. Slomka

807 So. 2d 98, 2002 WL 53899

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 16, 2002 | Docket: 1750922

Cited 3 times | Published

"similar health care provider," as defined in section 766.102(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2000). See Meyer v

Integrated Health Care Services, Inc. v. Lang-Redway

783 So. 2d 1108, 2001 WL 228024

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2001 | Docket: 1259332

Cited 3 times | Published

Compare § 400.022(1)(l), Fla. Stat. (1997), with § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). If the legislature wishes

MYRON EX REL. BROCK v. South Broward Hosp. Dist.

703 So. 2d 527, 1997 WL 794482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 1997 | Docket: 2548541

Cited 3 times | Published

perform a spinal tap, even by a neurosurgeon. See § 766.102(2)(c), Fla. Stat, Wright v. Schulte, 441 So.2d

MYRON EX REL. BROCK v. South Broward Hosp. Dist.

703 So. 2d 527, 1997 WL 794482

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 1997 | Docket: 2548541

Cited 3 times | Published

perform a spinal tap, even by a neurosurgeon. See § 766.102(2)(c), Fla. Stat, Wright v. Schulte, 441 So.2d

Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, Inc.

578 So. 2d 503, 1991 WL 63770

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 1991 | Docket: 1525243

Cited 3 times | Published

defined blood banks as health care providers, § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1989), and has declared the services

Davis v. Karr

264 So. 3d 279

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2019 | Docket: 64704569

Cited 2 times | Published

meet the statutory presuit requirements of section 766.102(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2013), because none

Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinics, Inc. v. Estate of Lawson ex rel. Lawson

175 So. 3d 327, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12951, 2015 WL 5057325

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 2015 | Docket: 60250551

Cited 2 times | Published

reasonably prudent similar health care providers.” § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. Our court said in Broadway v. Bay

Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinics, Inc. v. Estate of Lawson ex rel. Lawson

175 So. 3d 327, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12951, 2015 WL 5057325

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 2015 | Docket: 60250551

Cited 2 times | Published

reasonably prudent similar health care providers.” § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. Our court said in Broadway v. Bay

Edwards v. Sunrise Ophthalmology ASC, LLC

134 So. 3d 1056, 2013 WL 4525599, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13669

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 28, 2013 | Docket: 60239018

Cited 2 times | Published

written opinion from an expert — as defined by section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2009) — to support the negligence

Bery v. Fahel

88 So. 3d 236, 2011 WL 4949904, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16368

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 19, 2011 | Docket: 60308204

Cited 2 times | Published

not practice in the same or similar specialty. § 766.102(5), Fla. Stat. (2008). At the hearing on the motion

Jeffrey A. Hunt, D.O., P.A. v. Huppman

28 So. 3d 989, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3120, 2010 WL 843881

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2010 | Docket: 1166682

Cited 2 times | Published

expert witness as set forth in s. 766.102." Section 766.102(5) provides, "A person may not give expert

Maraj v. North Broward Hosp. Dist.

989 So. 2d 682, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 11593, 2008 WL 2906956

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 2008 | Docket: 2530321

Cited 2 times | Published

expert to meet the requirements contained in section 766.102. Because Drs. Paley and Katt are emergency

Maraj v. North Broward Hosp. Dist.

989 So. 2d 682, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 11593, 2008 WL 2906956

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 2008 | Docket: 2530321

Cited 2 times | Published

expert to meet the requirements contained in section 766.102. Because Drs. Paley and Katt are emergency

Castillo v. VISUAL HEALTH AND SURGICAL CTR.

972 So. 2d 254, 2008 WL 34813

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 2, 2008 | Docket: 1158312

Cited 2 times | Published

before the jury. The second issue involves section 766.102(3), Florida Statutes (2007). The appellants

LIFESOUTH CMTY. BLOOD CENTERS v. Fitchner

970 So. 2d 379, 2007 WL 3144829

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 26, 2007 | Docket: 1324266

Cited 2 times | Published

diagnosis, treatment, and care. In addition, in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2003), entitled "Medical

Mirza v. Trombley

946 So. 2d 1096, 2006 WL 3523640

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 2006 | Docket: 1771254

Cited 2 times | Published

medical negligence litigation pursuant to section 766.102, "[C]orroboration of reasonable grounds to

Paley v. Maraj

910 So. 2d 282, 2005 WL 1523362

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 29, 2005 | Docket: 1744686

Cited 2 times | Published

requirement of a trial expert witness under section 766.102. Where the malpractice claim is against emergency

Barrio v. Wilson

779 So. 2d 413, 2000 WL 1299347

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2000 | Docket: 1521066

Cited 2 times | Published

but we conclude that the error was harmless. Section 766.102(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provides in

Community Blood Centers v. Damiano

697 So. 2d 948, 1997 WL 430003

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 30, 1997 | Docket: 1777526

Cited 2 times | Published

766 definitions of "health care provider." See § 766.102; § 768.50(2), Fla.Stat. (1985);[4] § 766.101(1)(b);[5]

Paulk v. National Medical Enterprises

679 So. 2d 1289, 1996 WL 539833

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 25, 1996 | Docket: 1187865

Cited 2 times | Published

recovery under medical negligence is addressed in section 766.102(1), which embraces: "any action for recovery

Charlonne v. Rosenthal

642 So. 2d 632, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1941

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 1994 | Docket: 549588

Cited 2 times | Published

enacted specific criteria for expert witnesses. § 766.102(2), Fla. Stat. (1993).[1] The statute allows expert

J.B. And J.W.B., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, S.B. And E.B. And M.B. Individually v. Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola

996 F.2d 276, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 19190

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 27, 1993 | Docket: 372177

Cited 2 times | Published

professional medical negligence standard of care at § 766.102 applies to alleged tortfeasor). We believe

Groth v. Weinstock

610 So. 2d 477, 1992 WL 322993

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 6, 1992 | Docket: 1734738

Cited 2 times | Published

care provider."[1] The court below relied on section 766.102 which sets forth the standards of recovery

Mezrah v. Bevis

593 So. 2d 1214, 1992 WL 29052

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1992 | Docket: 1508898

Cited 2 times | Published

care, we conclude that there was no error. See § 766.102(2)(c)2, Fla. Stat. (1989). Also, there was additional

Mezrah v. Bevis

593 So. 2d 1214, 1992 WL 29052

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1992 | Docket: 1508898

Cited 2 times | Published

care, we conclude that there was no error. See § 766.102(2)(c)2, Fla. Stat. (1989). Also, there was additional

Riggenbach v. Rhodes

267 So. 3d 551

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 29, 2019 | Docket: 64709238

Cited 1 times | Published

similar specialty " as the defendant doctor. § 766.102(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (emphasis added). The

Simmons v. Jackson Memorial Hospital

253 So. 3d 59

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2018 | Docket: 7567931

Cited 1 times | Published

the prevailing professional standard of care,” § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); and (ii) Simmons’s alleged

Diane Rodriguez and David Rodriguez, etc. v. Ernst Nicolitz, M.D. and Lenka Champion, M.D.

246 So. 3d 550

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2018 | Docket: 6771557

Cited 1 times | Published

to initiate litigation did not comply with section 766.102(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), which mandates

Mark E. Pomper, M.D., P.A. v. Ferraro

206 So. 3d 728, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18779

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 21, 2016 | Docket: 63631146

Cited 1 times | Published

prejudice to raise the issue of noncompliance with section 766.102 if a revised complaint or discovery more clearly

Nieves, M.D. v. Viera

150 So. 3d 1236, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18947, 2014 WL 6464646

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 19, 2014 | Docket: 2606364

Cited 1 times | Published

treating similar patients,” as required by section 766.102(5)(a)l, Florida Statutes (2011). 1

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Case—Report No. 12-01

130 So. 3d 596, 2013 WL 2349287

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 30, 2013 | Docket: 60237846

Cited 1 times | Published

USE FOR 402.4a 1. See F.S. 766.102. Instruction 402.4a is derived from F.S. 766.102(1) and is intended to

Perez v. United States

883 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 2012 WL 3265086, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110024

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2012 | Docket: 65984040

Cited 1 times | Published

Pate, 661 So.2d at 281, guided by Fla. Stat. § 766.102(1): “the prevailing professional standard of care

Fitchner v. LifeSouth Community Blood Centers, Inc.

88 So. 3d 269, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5627, 2012 WL 1232730

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 13, 2012 | Docket: 60308218

Cited 1 times | Published

considered a claim for medical malpractice under section 766.102(1) Florida Statutes (2008). Chase died on July

Fox v. Department of Health

994 So. 2d 416, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 16424, 2008 WL 4643822

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 2008 | Docket: 1666674

Cited 1 times | Published

s. 766.102 when enforcing this paragraph." Section 766.102(3), Florida Statutes (2007), provides, "The

Bravo v. United States

403 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 2005 WL 3620200, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30818

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 30, 2005 | Docket: 2358419

Cited 1 times | Published

reasonably prudent similar health care providers. Section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes. The Court finds that

Borne v. LAWNWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

767 So. 2d 542, 2000 WL 1153999

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2000 | Docket: 2569468

Cited 1 times | Published

Appellant's expert was not qualified under section 766.102(6)(a)(b), Florida Statutes, to render an opinion

Williamson v. Roth

120 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20070, 2000 WL 1742037

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2000 | Docket: 2367090

Cited 1 times | Published

for medical malpractice under Florida law, section 766.102 of the Florida Statutes. Upon due consideration

Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, Inc.

66 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20009, 1999 WL 828631

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1999 | Docket: 2356923

Cited 1 times | Published

prevailing professional standard of care. See, e.g., § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. Standard Jury Instructions

Marshall v. Stein

662 So. 2d 720, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10388, 1995 WL 581130

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 5, 1995 | Docket: 64760061

Cited 1 times | Published

instructing the jury on res ipsa loquitur. Section 766.102(4), Florida Statutes (1988) provides: The existence

Ghamra, M. D., Lung Associates of Sarasota, LLC v. Williams, Estate of Derrick Williams

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2025 | Docket: 71275649

Published

Willis's affidavit did not comply with section 766.102 and the presuit requirements to filing a medical

Holly Brothers and Jaidon Naquin v. Tricia M. Percy, D.O.; All About Women, OB-GYN, Panama City, LLC; Antonio Esteban Pena, M.D.; And Paula C. Fulford, APRN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2025 | Docket: 71098921

Published

under the medical malpractice standard of care. § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2025) (“The prevailing professional

Robert C. Burley, Etc. v. the Village South, Inc., Etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 2, 2025 | Docket: 69834274

Published

This duty, it continued, is based in part on section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes, providing “the prevailing

Angel Tomas v. Dmitry Sandler, DPM

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2025 | Docket: 69793066

Published

who qualifies under section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2022). Section 766.102(5) requires an expert

Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Arlene Anderson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Zachary Taylor Anderson

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2025 | Docket: 69651628

Published

negligence standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1).” Integrated Health Care Servs., Inc

Douglas Stalley v. Lake CI Warden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Dec 30, 2024 | Docket: 67641213

Published

Argued: Jul 27, 2023

similar health care providers.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 766.102(1). But none of the defendant

Christopher Moncrief, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melissa Marie Moncrief v. Charles Edward Kollmer, M.D., and New Smyrna Orthopedics, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2024 | Docket: 69378400

Published

witness as set forth in section 766.102.” § 766.202(6), Fla. Stat. And section 766.102 provides, in relevant

Pablo Guzman, M.D. and Holy Cross Hospital, Inc. v. Maria Joanna Lazzari, the Plenary Guardian of the Person and Property of Morela Lazzari

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 3, 2024 | Docket: 68913308

Published

on the cardiac surgeon’s culpability under section 766.102(5), Florida Statutes (2013). The parties

PHENGSANITH PRADAXAY v. JAMES ERASMUS KENDRICK, IV, M.D., FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC. D/B/A ADVENTHEALTH

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 2024 | Docket: 68313507

Published

766.102.” § 766.202(6), Fla. Stat. (2021). Section 766.102(5) outlines several qualifications an expert

MICHAEL R. BARBER v. MANATEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2024 | Docket: 68366466

Published

on summary judgment, the trial court quotes section 766.102(3)(b), Florida Statues, without explanation

Lawrence Peter Metzler, Jr. v. Carolina Gladys Valdez, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 3, 2024 | Docket: 68132299

Published

Plaintiff nonetheless argues that pursuant to section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2022), in order to avoid

In Re: Amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2023 | Docket: 67561786

Published

130(a)(3)(H) to reference subsection (12) of section 766.102, because subsection (12) also articulates the

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL ALTAMONTE AND WILLIAM HUETHER, III, M.D. vs SALLY MACHALEK AND MATTHEW APTER, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2023 | Docket: 68034155

Published

Proc. 9.130, 367 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 2023). Section 766.102(5)-(9) specifically outlines the requirements

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC. D/B/A FLORIDA HOSPITAL ALTAMONTE AND WILLIAM HUETHER, III, M.D. vs SALLY MACHALEK AND MATTHEW APTER, M.D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 6, 2023 | Docket: 68034155

Published

Proc. 9.130, 367 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 2023). Section 766.102(5)-(9) specifically outlines the requirements

ZADYE THOMAS vs ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 11, 2023 | Docket: 67400033

Published

required to plead a medical malpractice claim. See § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. Appellant included customary,

University of Florida Board of Trustees v. Laurie Carmody

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 2023 | Docket: 67561782

Published

” § 766.202(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 766.102, in turn, provides that “[a] person may not

MARIA MARTINEZ v. DON JOHN PEREZ-ORTIZ, M. D. AND THE PEREZ EYE CENTER, P. L.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 23, 2022 | Docket: 65370802

Published

specialty" as Dr. Perez Ortiz, pursuant to section 766.102(5)(a)1; and (3) because Dr. Hamburger's

SRINIVAS RAO DONTINENI, M.D. vs PATRICIA SANDERSON, JOSEPH BOULAY, M.D., ALL STAR RECRUITING LOCUMS, LLC, ANGELO FERNANDES, M.D., ARVIND KUMAR, M.D., BREVARD INTERNAL MEDICINE & WALK IN CLINIC, PLLC, ET AL.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 2022 | Docket: 68035384

Published

that health care provider is a specialist. Id. § 766.102(5)(a)1. Alternatively, if the health care provider

JAMES J. MC MANUS v. DR. G. A. GAMEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2019 | Docket: 16025077

Published

expert." Townes, 242 So. 3d at 309 (quoting § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2008)). In order to determine

Specialty Hospital-Gainesville, Inc. v. Charles Barth

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 15, 2019 | Docket: 15916397

Published

negligence standard of care as set forth in section 766.102(1).” National Deaf Acad., LLC v. Townes, 242

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: May 23, 2019 | Docket: 15665581

Published

- 22 - Evidence Code and to section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2012).” (emphasis added)

Davis v. Karr

264 So. 3d 279

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2019 | Docket: 64704570

Published

meet the statutory presuit requirements of section 766.102(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2013), because none

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases - Report No. 18-01

253 So. 3d 531

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 13, 2018 | Docket: 7870947

Published

(Medical Negligence), which is derived from section 766.102(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and concerns the standard

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code

210 So. 3d 1231, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 179, 2017 WL 633770, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 338

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2017 | Docket: 4586140

Published

changes to the Florida Evidence Code and to section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2012). We have jurisdiction

Simon Dockswell v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., etc.

210 So. 3d 1201, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 32, 2017 WL 372091, 2017 Fla. LEXIS 193

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2017 | Docket: 4574074

Published

issue presented involves the interpretation of section 766.102(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011) (the foreign-body

Bery v. Fahel

194 So. 3d 1099, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10359, 2016 WL 3611022

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 6, 2016 | Docket: 4108188

Published

expert witness' 'as set forth in s. 766.102.” Section 766.102, in turn, sets forth the qualifications required

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases – Report No. 15-01 – Corrected Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2016 | Docket: 3079196

Published

4a 1. See F.S. 766.102. Instruction 402.4a is derived from F.S. 766.102(1) and is intended to

Tuyuana L. Morris, as Personal etc. v. Orlando S. Muniz, M.D., Marianna etc.

189 So. 3d 348, 2016 WL 1660554, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6298

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2016 | Docket: 3058396

Published

section 1 Subsection (5) of section 766.102 addresses the qualifications for an expert

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Long

189 So. 3d 335, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6148, 2016 WL 1600606

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2016 | Docket: 3061464

Published

Furthermore, we have previously recognized that “section 766.102(5) provides a less stringent standard for qualification

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases - Report No. 15-01

192 So. 3d 1183, 2016 WL 1592719

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2016 | Docket: 3056549

Published

4a 1. See F.S. 766.102. Instruction 402.4a is derived from F.S. 766.102(1) and is intended to

In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases-Report No. 15-01

192 So. 3d 1183

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2016 | Docket: 60294148

Published

USE FOR 402.4a 1. See F.S. 766.102. Instruction 402.4a is derived from F.S. 766.102(1) and is intended to

Simon Dockswell and Sandra Dockswell v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc.

177 So. 3d 270, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13820, 2015 WL 5455619

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 2015 | Docket: 2808044

Published

appeal is how the first and last sentences of section 766.102(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), apply to a

Simon Dockswell and Sandra Dockswell v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., a Florida corporation

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2015 | Docket: 2634843

Published

original). The instruction is derived from section 766.102(3), Florida Statutes, which provides that a

Patricia Franza v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 10, 2014 | Docket: 2900989

Published

of a hospital setting”); cf. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 766.102 (2013) (defining standard of care in medical

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions (Financial Impact Statement)

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 2014 | Docket: 401480

Published

standard of care for that health care provider.” § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). And the victims of this

Lucante v. Kyker

122 So. 3d 407, 2013 WL 4614754, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13965

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 30, 2013 | Docket: 60234676

Published

specialty” presuit compliance requirement of section 766.102(5), Florida Statutes. Second, the appellant

Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Pilgrim

107 So. 3d 505, 2013 WL 561464, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2315

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2013 | Docket: 60228691

Published

medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes. Not every wrongful act

Weiss v. Pratt

53 So. 3d 395, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1897, 2011 WL 519896

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2011 | Docket: 60298104

Published

requires no more than that. This leads us to section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2003), which governs expert

GalenCare, Inc. v. Mosley

59 So. 3d 138, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1514, 2011 WL 439467

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2011 | Docket: 60299610

Published

medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1).” Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 885, 838

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. Wirth

49 So. 3d 802, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 17190, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2505

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 2010 | Docket: 2401005

Published

against whom ... the testimony is offered[.]” § 766.102(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007). Because it is not clear

Dirga v. Butler

39 So. 3d 388, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8934, 2010 WL 2472489

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2010 | Docket: 2410784

Published

that it is incorporated by reference into section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (1991). Weinstock v. Groth

Parham v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC.

35 So. 3d 920, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4183, 2010 WL 1222925

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2010 | Docket: 1645958

Published

negligence cases are now stated in a statute. See § 766.102. The field is heavily regulated both by case law

Parham v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC.

35 So. 3d 920, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4183, 2010 WL 1222925

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2010 | Docket: 1645958

Published

negligence cases are now stated in a statute. See § 766.102. The field is heavily regulated both by case law

COLUMBIA/JFK MEDICAL CTR. v. Sangounchitte

977 So. 2d 639

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 13, 2008 | Docket: 1529636

Published

that Shorr was not qualified to testify under section 766.102(7), Florida Statutes, which provides: . .

Henson v. United States

508 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34967, 2007 WL 1428720

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: May 14, 2007 | Docket: 2341756

Published

prudent similar health care providers." Fla. Stat. § 766.102. The question to be resolved in this case is whether

Jackson v. United States

469 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3704, 2006 WL 229514

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2006 | Docket: 2364321

Published

Kriz, 531 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2002), codifies the prevailing

Sendzischew v. Johnson

934 So. 2d 487, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17043, 2004 WL 2534294

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 10, 2004 | Docket: 64845827

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 766.102(2), Fla. Stat. (2003); § 768.81(3)(6), Fla. Stat. (1991); Osler v. Collins

Pagan v. Sarasota County Public Hospital Board

884 So. 2d 257, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11826

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 13, 2004 | Docket: 64833468

Published

reasonably careful physician would provide. See § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 4

Loadholtz v. Andrews

855 So. 2d 1241, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15384, 2003 WL 22331156

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2003 | Docket: 64825726

Published

their medical expert was unqualified under section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2002), was error. We agree

Goss v. Permenter

827 So. 2d 285, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12081

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2002 | Docket: 64817871

Published

of care of an emergency medicine physician. Section 766.102(6)(a) provides that in malpractice actions

Preston v. HEALTH CARE CORP. OF AMERICA

785 So. 2d 570, 2001 WL 321249

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2001 | Docket: 1510130

Published

medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102 applied to the active tortfeasorthe agent

Hall v. Anwar

774 So. 2d 41, 2000 WL 1504940

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2000 | Docket: 1330557

Published

provider and not that owed by an ethicist. See § 766.102(2)(c). Under these circumstances, it may occasionally

Cohen v. Burger

769 So. 2d 466, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13203, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2453

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 11, 2000 | Docket: 64801077

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (1997) (requiring that evidence of prevailing professional

Fuentes v. Spirer

766 So. 2d 1081, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8758, 2000 WL 954935

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 12, 2000 | Docket: 64800299

Published

a similar health care provider pursuant to section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1995). Because we disagree

Juarbe v. Gomez

762 So. 2d 534, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5779, 2000 WL 628281

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 17, 2000 | Docket: 64798684

Published

health care provider” within the meaning of section 766.102(2)(a), (b), or (c), Florida Statutes (1999)

Jhagroo v. Sinclair

702 So. 2d 254, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13281, 1997 WL 731735

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 1997 | Docket: 64777185

Published

Medical Malpractice Act, Florida Statutes section 766.102(1)(1995), is proof “by the greater weight of

Franzen v. Mogler

744 So. 2d 1029, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11888, 1997 WL 656303

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 22, 1997 | Docket: 64792169

Published

professional standard of care by the doctor. § 766.102(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).2 Hence it is only the personal

Stewart v. Price

704 So. 2d 594, 1997 WL 611526

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 7, 1997 | Docket: 64778343

Published

satisfy the expert witness requirements of section 766.102(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991). For the reasons

Padgett v. Sims

701 So. 2d 357, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10282, 1997 WL 536012

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 3, 1997 | Docket: 64776728

Published

the requirements for an expert witness under section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1995). Dr. Padgett, a family

McDonald v. Medical Imaging Center of Boca Raton

662 So. 2d 733, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11458, 1995 WL 637539

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1995 | Docket: 64760068

Published

analysis with a statute cited by defendant, section 766.102(4), Florida Statutes (1989), which provides:

Fernandez v. McMahon (In re McMahon)

183 B.R. 948, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 48, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 918

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 6, 1995 | Docket: 65781099

Published

professional standard in the community. See Fla.Stat. 766.102(1). However, a conduct of the debt- or which

Green v. Goldberg

630 So. 2d 606, 1993 WL 517231

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 1994 | Docket: 418869

Published

provider's actions or inactions are defined by section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1991). Pursuant to this

Mishler v. Zakheim

625 So. 2d 81, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9741, 1993 WL 392244

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 1993 | Docket: 64743302

Published

plaintiffs’ proposed expert witnesses under section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1991), the summary judgment

Villar v. Pereiras

588 So. 2d 678, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11292, 1991 WL 232229

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1991 | Docket: 64662799

Published

jury instruction is derived, in part, from Section 766.102(4), Florida Statutes (1989), which is a codification

Craft v. Kramer

571 So. 2d 1337, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7087, 1990 WL 133794

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 19, 1990 | Docket: 64655389

Published

Florida Stat*1339utes (1983) [renumbered as section 766.102, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.) ], and by failing