Cases from cite.case.law:

DAVIS v. A. KARR, M. D. M. D. P. A. D B A M. D., 264 So. 3d 279 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

GINDEL, Li, D v. CENTEX HOMES,, 267 So. 3d 403 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . malpractice, compliance with the statutory pre-suit notice and investigation requirements of sections 766.104 . . .

L. MORRIS, v. S. MUNIZ, M. D., 252 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2018)

. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion "that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .

O. BEAN, v. PERDUE,, 316 F. Supp. 3d 220 (D.D.C. 2018)

. . . See § 766.104(a). . . . the delinquent portion of the loan; and (ii) the borrower must have acted in good faith. 7 C.F.R. §§ 766.104 . . .

BAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, v. SEELEY,, 217 So. 3d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . If an extension has been granted under section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, or by agreement of the parties . . .

DOCKSWELL, v. BETHESDA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., 210 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2017)

. . . .” § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .

COFFEY- GARCIA, v. SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL, INC., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

BOVE, v. NAPLES HMA, LLC, d b a E. M. D. M. D., 196 So. 3d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . 'See § 766.104(2) (permitting the extension of statute of limitations period upon petition, but providing . . .

BARRIER, A. v. JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d b a JFK P. L. a M. D. a L. P. N. L. P. N. L. P. N. J. M. D. M. D., 169 So. 3d 185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . 19, 2012, after having received the ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations under section 766.104 . . .

SALAZAR, v. COELLO, M. D., 154 So. 3d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . she obtained an automatic ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to subsection 766.104 . . . After extensive review of the Florida Statutes and the history of Section 766.104 we are unable to conclude . . . were sent within the statute of limitations as properly calculated under all of the terms of Section 766.104 . . . claim would have expired on November 19, 1996 but under Hankey, the ninety-day extension of subsection 766.104 . . .

WINTER HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC. a v. K. LILES,, 148 So. 3d 507 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 766.104(1) (“No action shall be filed for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical . . .

YOUNG v. NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. P. A. LLC M. D., 129 So. 3d 456 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations in medical negligence actions as provided for by section 766.104 . . . notice of intent by May 8, 2008, that the attempt to obtain a ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(2) provides in pertinent part as follows: "Upon petition to the clerk of court where . . .

N. BAXTER, Jr. v. NORTHRUP, D. O. An, 128 So. 3d 908 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes, provide for tolling of the statute of limitations under . . .

PIERROT, v. OSCEOLA MENTAL HEALTH, INC., 106 So. 3d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See §§ 766.104, .106, .203, Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . The presuit requirements are set forth in sections 766.104, .106, and .203. . . . Sections 766.104 and .106 do not contain a definition of health care provider. . . . Subsection (3) of section 766.104 references section 456.00 l’s definition of "health care practitioner . . .

POLLOCK, Sr. M. R. P. a v. DANNER, C. N. M. f k a d b a, 98 So. 3d 650 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . was proper because the Pollocks’ counsel failed to comply with the presuit requirements of sections 766.104 . . .

R. W. v. ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. a, 830 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 766.104. . . .

RAMOS, As J. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 429 F. App'x 947 (11th Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 766.104(2). . . .

PATRICK, v. LIONEL GATIEN, D. O. E. D. O., 65 So. 3d 42 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods. § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Because only one month remained and because the ninety-day purchased period from section 766.104(2) is . . . Given that section 766.104(2) authorized a 90-day extension, our supreme court concluded, the payment . . . the original statute of limitations, or under the automatic ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. In No. In No. In No. In No. s In No. In No. In No. In No., 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)

. . . F.S. 95.11(4)(b), 766.106, and 766.104(2). . . .

COHEN, v. N. COOPER, M. D. N. M. D. P. A., 20 So. 3d 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Cohen filed a ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104, Florida Statutes, on October 27, 1999 . . .

DERESPINA, v. NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d b a, 19 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . .” § 766.104(1) (emphasis added). . . .

STEMERMAN, LAZARUS, SIMOVITCH, BILLINGS, FINER GINSBURG, M. D. s P. A. a d b a M. D. M. D. v. FUERST, a M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. a, 4 So. 3d 55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . even if you were to assume that they had sought the 90-day automatic extension permitted by section 766.104 . . .

METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TEPPER,, 2 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); §§ 766.106(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. . . .

M. PORUMBESCU J. v. THOMPSON, M. D. P. A., 987 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 766.104(2) On December 7, 1998, the Po-rumbescus filed a petition for an automatic extension . . . of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104(2), which provides: Upon petition to the clerk . . . This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods. § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . under section 766.106(4) in addition to the automatic 90-day extension petitioned for under section 766.104 . . . , 638 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), where after carefully considering the language in section 766.104 . . .

MARAJ v. NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT,, 989 So. 2d 682 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . 2003, the plaintiffs secured an automatic 90-day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to § 766.104 . . .

THOMAS, v. LOPEZ, M. D., 982 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Thomas filed a petition pursuant to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (2003), for an automatic 90-day . . .

JOHNSON, T. v. McNEIL, RN M. D. ARNP, 278 F. App'x 866 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . dismiss Johnson’s negligence claim for failure to comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.104 . . . Stat. § 766.104 (2005). . . . Stat. § 766.104(1) (2005). . . . .

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, v. WILSON,, 948 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . § 766.104, Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .

LARGIE v. GREGORIAN, M. D. M. D. P. A. A. R. N. P. C. M. D. M. D. P. A., 913 So. 2d 635 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . . Stat. (2002); see also § 766.104(1), Fla. . . .

CORA HEALTH SERVICES, INC. v. H. STEINBRONN,, 867 So. 2d 587 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Burbank, the malpractice claimant, petitioned the circuit court for an extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . .

RODRIGUEZ v. B. SAENZ, M. D., 866 So. 2d 184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Rodriguez filed a petition to extend the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104(2), Florida . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TWO YEAR CYCLE, 858 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2003)

. . . If an extension has been granted under section 768.495(2) 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, or by agreement . . .

FLORIDA HOSPITAL WATERMAN, v. STOLL, 855 So. 2d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . . §§ 766.104(1), 766.203(2). . . . See § 766.104(2); § 766.106(3)(a); § 766.106(4). . . .

H. CORTES, M. D. v. P. WILLIAMS,, 850 So. 2d 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . With the extension purchased pursuant to section 766.104(2), the statute of limitations would have run . . . This argument is contrary to the plain language of section 766.104(2) and the supreme court’s holding . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (“This period shall be in addition to other tolling periods.”). . . . Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, a timely purchased . . . Coffaro deals with the interplay between section 766.104(2) and section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes, . . .

C. WALKER, Jr. v. VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL,, 842 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2003)

. . . Virginia Insurance complied with the medical malpractice presuit screening requirements of sections 766.104 . . . for a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant. § 766.104 . . . an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definitions of sections 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that no medical negligence action can be filed . . .

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, v. COFFARO,, 829 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 2002)

. . . tolling and extension periods of the medical malpractice statute of limitations, in particular, sections 766.104 . . . that these provisions are separate statutory provisions, I also cannot ignore the language of section 766.104 . . . The interpretation given by the majority that the purchased extension of section 766.104(2) is added . . . Further, in discussing section 766.104(2), we stated that the plaintiff can “also automatically secure . . . Sections 766.104(2) and 766.106(4), Florida Statutes, were enacted as part of the same bill in 1985. . . . District Court of Appeal as one of great public importance: IS A 90-DAY EXTENSION PURCHASED UNDER SECTION 766.104 . . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . The instant case involves the interplay between section 766.104(2) and section 766.106(4). . . . In fact, we approved this interpretation of section 766.104(2) in Tanner. See id. at 182. . . . cannot agree with the majority because I do not believe that the majority properly applies sections 766.104 . . . depending on when the purchase of the extension to the statute of limitations authorized by section 766.104 . . . recognized in Rothschild is that the extension of the statute of limitations authorized by section 766.104 . . . See § 766.104(2). 2. Determine the date when the tolling period begins for each defendant. . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

K. BURBANK, v. KERO, M. D., 813 So. 2d 292 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . With the ninety-day extension authorized by Florida Statute section 766.104(2), the statute of limitations . . .

E. GUTIERREZ, M. D. E. M. D. P. A. v. PERALTA,, 785 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . The Act further provides in section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes, that: No action shall be filed for . . .

S. TORREY, v. LEESBURG REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,, 769 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2000)

. . . statute of limitations under section 95.11(4)(b) is suspended (“tolled”) for ninety days under section 766.104 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 773 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 2000)

. . . Parham, 745 So.2d 946 (Fla.1999), that the tolling provisions of section 766.104(2) and section 766.106 . . .

PAVOLINI v. F. BIRD, M. D. F. M. D. P. A., 769 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . The Act further provides in section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes, that: No action shall be filed for . . .

VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL, s v. C. WALKER, Jr. M. D. P. A., 765 So. 2d 229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . malpractice, the plaintiff complied with the medical malpractice presuit screening requirements of sections 766.104 . . . an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definition of sections 766.104 . . .

DOMINION OF CANADA, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, 754 So. 2d 852 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); §§ 766.106(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. (1997); § 768.28(6)(a), Fla. . . .

HANKEY, v. YARIAN, M. D., 755 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2000)

. . . See § 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . See § 766.104(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . SECTION 766.104(2) Finally, in addition to the two scenarios involved in section 766.106(4) discussed . . . Section 766.104(2) provides: Upon petition to the clerk of the court where the suit will be filed and . . . In fact, we approved this interpretation of section 766.104(2) in Tanner. See id. at 182. . . .

COFFARO, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d b a v. d b a JR. M. D. M. D. P. A. St. s, 752 So. 2d 712 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . This case involves the interplay of three such provisions in sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes . . . •Section 766.104(2) allows a 90-day extension of the limitations period upon application to the clerk . . . Pursuant to section 766.104(2), “[t]his period shall be in addition to other tolling periods.” . . . If not a tolling period, we conclude that section 766.104(2) would allow the purchased extension to be . . . Section 766.104(2) does not limit the time at which a plaintiff may purchase this extension, other than . . .

MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE CHARTERED, d b a E. III, M. D. E. III, M. D. P. A. A. M. D. v. S. PARHAM,, 745 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1999)

. . . be of great public importance: DO THE EXTENSIONS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 766.104 . . . THE PLAINTIFF PETITIONS FOR AN AUTOMATIC 90-DAY EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER SECTION 766.104 . . . 2), FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE “REASONABLE INVESTIGATION” REQUIRED BY SECTION 766.104 . . . On December 16, 1994, Par-ham filed a petition, pursuant to section 766.104(2), for an automatic 90-day . . . In conjunction with section 766.106, the “reasonable investigation” requirement of section 766.104 is . . .

A. WENDEL, M. D. f u b o v. HAUSER, M. D. d b a, 726 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . On May 31, 1994, appellant petitioned for an automatic ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104 . . . On May 31, 1994, appellant filed a petition for a ninety-day extension pursuant to section 766.104(2) . . .

HANKEY v. YARIAN, M. D., 719 So. 2d 987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . for an automatic 90 day extension to the two year statutory limitation period, pursuant to section 766.104 . . . petitioned for an automatic ninety (90) days stay of the Statute of Limitations under Florida Statute 766.104 . . . This court explained that absent application of section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, the suit would . . . on November 2, 1994, past the running of the statute of limitations but for the operation of section 766.104 . . . The plaintiff (as the plaintiffs here) had, in accordance with section 766.104(2), filed a petition for . . .

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS- CIVIL CASES NO., 723 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1998)

. . . . § 766.104(2). . . .

NOWLING, J. v. WALTON REGIONAL HOSPITAL M. D., 711 So. 2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . We conclude that the section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes, extension to the limitations period should . . . section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes, the appellant filed a petition for an extension under section 766.104 . . . original two-year period had run, but within the ninety-day extension which pertains under section 766.104 . . . Despite the technical noncomplianee with section 766.104(2), the automatic ninety-day extension should . . . Section 766.104(2) was in existence when the alleged cause of action accrued in the present case, and . . .

ROTHSCHILD, v. NME HOSPITALS, INC. d b a, 707 So. 2d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . a petition for an automatic ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations, pursuant to section 766.104 . . . In addition, under séction 766.104(2), a claimant can essentially “buy” a ninety-day extension of the . . . On October 30, 1995, the appellant “purchased” a ninety-day extension under section 766.104(2). . . . In fact, even without the extended period provided for in section 766.104(2), the suit was timely filed . . .

S. PARHAM, v. A. BALIS, M. D. E. III, M. D. E. III, M. D. P. A., 704 So. 2d 623 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . issue raised in this appeal is whether the extensions of the statute of limitations allowed by sections 766.104 . . . On December 16,1994, Parham filed a petition, pursuant to section 766.104(2), for an automatic 90-day . . . that the repose time period was extended or tolled by their petition pursuant to Florida Statutes § 766.104 . . . one of great public importance: DO THE EXTENSIONS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(2) provides: Upon petition to the clerk of the court where the suit will be filed and . . . that the statute of repose in 95.11(4)(b) is neither extended nor tolled by the provisions of sections 766.104 . . . The provisions contained in sections 766.104(2) and 766.106(4) were originally enacted as part of the . . . Therefore, at the time the legislature drafted the language in sections 766.104 and 766.106, respectively . . .

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS- CIVIL CASES- NO., 700 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1997)

. . . . § 766.104(2). . . .

FORT WALTON BEACH MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D. D. P. A. v. M. DINGLER L., 697 So. 2d 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . II Section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that “[n]o action shall be filed for personal . . . provider” who may testify as an expert in a medical negligence action, and who, pursuant to section 766.104 . . . claimant’s presuit investigation — the standard set forth in section 766.102(2)(c)2, as allowed by section 766.104 . . .

KURZWEIL B. v. LARKIN HOSPITAL OPERATING CO. a, 684 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . This is an appeal from an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206(2), Florida . . . Thereafter, L.H.O.C. moved for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to sections 766.104(1) and 766.206 . . . An award of attorney’s fees is permitted under section 766.104(1) where the court determines that counsel . . . Thus, neither section 766.104(1) or section 766.206(2) provides a basis for an attorney’s fee award in . . . Section 766.104(1) reads: No action shall be filed for personal injury or wrongful death arising out . . .

ROYLE v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL- EAST ORLANDO, R. D. O., 679 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . The applicable portions of Chapter 766 provide: 766.104 Pleading in medical negligence cases; claim for . . .

KUKRAL v. D. MEKRAS, M. D. Dr. T. d b a, 679 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1996)

. . . Section 766.104(1) provides that no medical negligence action shall be filed “unless the attorney filing . . . Section 766.104(2) provides for a ninety-day extension of the statute of limitations “to allow the reasonable . . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .

PERGREM, v. HORAN, M. D., 669 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . on November 2, 1994, past the running of the statute of limitations but for the operation of section 766.104 . . . Section 766.104(2) provides: Upon petition to the clerk of court where the suit will be filed, and payment . . . HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . § 95.11, Fla.Stat. (1991). . §§ 766.104(2) and 766.106(4), Fla.Stat . . .

DION v. E. BALD, M. D. E. M. D. P. A., 664 So. 2d 348 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Pursuant to § 766.104(1), Florida Statutes, the undersigned attorney for the plaintiffs hereby certifies . . .

PALM SPRINGS GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. PEREZ,, 661 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . action below for failure to comply with the medical malpractice screening requirements of Sections 766.104 . . .

PATE v. B. THRELKEL, M. D. B. M. D. P. A. P. A., 661 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1995)

. . . We do note, however, that the plaintiffs have pled good-faith compliance with section 766.104, Florida . . . Section 766.104, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in part: (1) No action shall be filed for personal . . .

DAVIS, a v. ORLANDO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,, 654 So. 2d 664 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .

KAGAN v. J. POLLOCK, M. D. M. D. M. D. S. P. A. M. D. A. M. D. A. M. D. P. A. R. M. D., 638 So. 2d 151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . reverse, as the Kagans were granted an extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . . filed and were granted a ninety (90) day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . . the Kagans were granted a ninety (90) day extension of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . .

SUAREZ, v. ST. JOSEPH S HOSPITAL, INC. a, 634 So. 2d 217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . . § 766.104(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). . . . Lehrer’s written opinion, attached as Exhibit B, adequately comply with the section 766.104(1) requirements . . .

MASON v. Dr. D. BISOGNO, D. O., 633 So. 2d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Bisogno on 13 November 1990, pursuant to section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes (1991). . . .

BOYD, v. F. BECKER, M. D., 627 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1993)

. . . for and received an automatic ninety-day extension to the statute of limitations pursuant to section 766.104 . . .

TANNER, v. HARTOG, M. D., 618 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1993)

. . . The first is section 766.104(2), Florida Statutes (1991), formerly section 768.495(2), which states: . . . 90 days by filing a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.104 . . .

M. DUFFY, M. D. v. BROOKER,, 614 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 766.104(1) provides that no medical negligence action shall be filed “unless the attorney filing . . . Section 766.104(2) provides for a 90-day extension of the statute of limitations “to allow the reasonable . . .

BOYD, v. F. BECKER, M. D., 603 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . date, Boyd timely requested and received a ninety day extension of the limitation period per section 766.104 . . . On August 30, 1990, Boyd mailed a notice of intent to initiate litigation pursuant to section 766.104 . . . However, June 3rd was on a Sunday, whereby June 4th became the relevant date for section 766.104(2). . . .

ARTHUR, v. UNICARE HEALTH FACILITIES, INC. d b a R. M. D., 602 So. 2d 596 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Renumbered as sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes (1991). . . . .

STEBILLA v. J. MUSSALLEM, M. D., 595 So. 2d 136 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Section 766.104 refers to a written medical opinion “that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence . . .

TANNER, R. v. M. HARTOG, M. D. M. D. P. A., 593 So. 2d 249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . 90 days by filing a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.104 . . .

P. KALBACH, R. v. A. DAY, Ph. D, Dr. J. a, 589 So. 2d 448 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . In addition, section 766.104(2) provides for an additional 90-day extension of the limitations period . . . was entitled to two (2) consecutive tolling periods of 90 days each under the provisions of sections 766.104 . . . court has maintained that the two 90-day periods, of toll and extension, under sections 766.106(4) and 766.104 . . . More importantly, section 766.104(2) specifically states that the 90-day extension is “in addition to . . .

L. NOVITSKY, v. H. HARDS, D. D. S., 589 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 768.495, Florida Statutes (1987) was transferred to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988 . . .

SOUTHERN NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P. A. v. H. FINE,, 591 So. 2d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . an automatic ninety-day extension of the limitation period under then section 768.495, now section 766.104 . . .

L. FARANCZ, v. ST. MARY S HOSPITAL, INC., 585 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . The above statute has a logical counterpart in sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989). . . . Section 766.104(2) expressly authorizes an extension of the statute of limitations to allow reasonable . . .

NME PROPERTIES, INC. d b a v. E. McCULLOUGH,, 590 So. 2d 439 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff had failed to comply and plead compliance with sections 766.104 . . .

MOORE, a v. WINTER HAVEN HOSPITAL, M. D. P. A. R. K. M. D. R. K. M. D. P. A., 579 So. 2d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Transferred to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). . 768.57 Notice before filing action for . . .

NME HOSPITALS, INC. a d b a v. AZZARITI, 573 So. 2d 173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . respondents filed their complaint without first complying with the mandatory requirements of sections 766.104 . . .

BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC. v. J. ABAUNZA, M. D., 563 So. 2d 174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Insofar as pertinent here, Abaunza moved to dismiss for Baptist’s failure to comply with section 766.104 . . . It appears that the trial court invoked section 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989), as well as section 766.104 . . . an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definition of sections 766.104 . . .

E. RHOADES, v. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, M. D. M. D. M. D. B. K. M. D. S. M. D. S. M. D. M. D. M. D. M. D. P. A., 554 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Transferred to section 766.104, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). . . . .