The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 766
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND RELATED MATTERS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 766.106

766.106 Notice before filing action for medical negligence; presuit screening period; offers for admission of liability and for arbitration; informal discovery; review.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Claim for medical negligence” or “claim for medical malpractice” means a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.

(b) “Self-insurer” means any self-insurer authorized under s. 627.357 or any uninsured prospective defendant.

(2) PRESUIT NOTICE.—

(a) After completion of presuit investigation pursuant to s. 766.203(2) and before filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall notify each prospective defendant of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence by at least one of the following verifiable means:

1. United States Postal Service certified mail, return receipt requested;

2. United States Postal Service mail with a tracking number;

3. An interstate commercial mail carrier or delivery service; or

4. Any person authorized by law to serve process.

(b)1. Proof of service made pursuant to this subsection and delivered to an address on file with the Department of Health, the Secretary of State, or the Agency for Health Care Administration creates a rebuttable presumption that service was received by the prospective defendant.

2. If service is challenged during subsequent litigation, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the prospective defendant or a person legally related to the prospective defendant was provided notice pursuant to this subsection and, if so, the date of such service. If service is challenged under this subparagraph, it must be challenged in the first response to the complaint, and if:

a. The court determines that service was properly made at the prospective defendant’s address as listed on the state licensing agency website or an address on file with the Secretary of State; and

b. The prospective defendant proves by the greater weight of the evidence that neither the prospective defendant nor a person legally related to the prospective defendant at the time of service knew or should have known of the service,

the court must stay the case for a presuit investigation period pursuant to this section, and the statute of limitations and statute of repose must be tolled from the time service was properly made at the prospective defendant’s address as listed on the state licensing agency website or an address on file with the Secretary of State. The tolling shall end at the conclusion of the presuit investigation period provided for in this subsection, and the stay of litigation shall automatically end at the conclusion of the presuit investigation period.

(c) Notice to each prospective defendant must include, if available, a list of all known health care providers seen by the claimant for the injuries complained of subsequent to the alleged act of negligence, all known health care providers during the 2-year period before the alleged act of negligence who treated or evaluated the claimant, copies of all of the medical records relied upon by the expert in signing the affidavit, and the executed authorization form provided in s. 766.1065.

(d) Following the initiation of a suit alleging medical negligence with a court of competent jurisdiction, and service of the complaint upon a prospective defendant, the claimant shall provide a copy of the complaint to the Department of Health and, if the complaint involves a facility licensed under chapter 395, the Agency for Health Care Administration. The requirement of providing the complaint to the Department of Health or the Agency for Health Care Administration does not impair the claimant’s legal rights or ability to seek relief for his or her claim. The Department of Health or the Agency for Health Care Administration shall review each incident that is the subject of the complaint and determine whether it involved conduct by a licensee which is potentially subject to disciplinary action, in which case, for a licensed health care practitioner, s. 456.073 applies and, for a licensed facility, part I of chapter 395 applies.

(3) PRESUIT INVESTIGATION BY PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT.—

(a) A suit may not be filed for a period of 90 days after notice is delivered to any prospective defendant. During the 90-day period, the prospective defendant or the prospective defendant’s insurer or self-insurer shall conduct a review as provided in s. 766.203(3) to determine the liability of the prospective defendant. Each insurer or self-insurer shall have a procedure for the prompt investigation, review, and evaluation of claims during the 90-day period. This procedure must include one or more of the following:

1. Internal review by a duly qualified claims adjuster;

2. Creation of a panel comprised of an attorney knowledgeable in the prosecution or defense of medical negligence actions, a health care provider trained in the same or similar medical specialty as the prospective defendant, and a duly qualified claims adjuster;

3. A contractual agreement with a state or local professional society of health care providers, which maintains a medical review committee; or

4. Any other similar procedure which fairly and promptly evaluates the pending claim.

Each insurer or self-insurer shall investigate the claim in good faith, and both the claimant and prospective defendant shall cooperate with the insurer in good faith. If the insurer requires, a claimant must appear before a pretrial screening panel or before a medical review committee and shall submit to a physical examination, if required. Unreasonable failure of any party to comply with this section justifies dismissal of claims or defenses. There shall be no civil liability for participation in a pretrial screening procedure if done without intentional fraud.

(b) At or before the end of the 90 days, the prospective defendant or the prospective defendant’s insurer or self-insurer shall provide the claimant with a response:

1. Rejecting the claim;

2. Making a settlement offer; or

3. Making an offer to arbitrate in which liability is deemed admitted and arbitration will be held only on the issue of damages. This offer may be made contingent upon a limit of general damages.

(c) The response shall be delivered to the claimant if not represented by counsel or to the claimant’s attorney, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Failure of the prospective defendant or insurer or self-insurer to reply to the notice within 90 days after receipt shall be deemed a final rejection of the claim for purposes of this section.

(d) Within 30 days of receipt of a response by a prospective defendant, insurer, or self-insurer to a claimant represented by an attorney, the attorney shall advise the claimant in writing of the response, including:

1. The exact nature of the response under paragraph (b).

2. The exact terms of any settlement offer, or admission of liability and offer of arbitration on damages.

3. The legal and financial consequences of acceptance or rejection of any settlement offer, or admission of liability, including the provisions of this section.

4. An evaluation of the time and likelihood of ultimate success at trial on the merits of the claimant’s action.

5. An estimation of the costs and attorney’s fees of proceeding through trial.

(4) SERVICE OF PRESUIT NOTICE AND TOLLING.—The notice of intent to initiate litigation must be served within the time limits set forth in s. 95.11. However, upon mailing of the notice of intent to initiate litigation, as provided in subparagraph (2)(a)1., subparagraph (2)(a)2., or subparagraph (2)(a)3., and during the 90-day period provided in subsection (3), the statute of limitations is tolled as to all prospective defendants. If the notice of intent to initiate litigation is served by a process server as provided in subparagraph (2)(a)4., the statute of limitations is tolled upon the process server’s first attempt to serve the prospective defendant and continues during the 90-day period as to all prospective defendants. Upon stipulation by the parties, the 90-day period may be extended and the statute of limitations is tolled during any such extension. Upon receiving notice of termination of negotiations in an extended period, the claimant shall have 60 days or the remainder of the period of the statute of limitations, whichever is greater, within which to file suit. As used in this section, the terms “prospective” and “potential” are interchangeable.

(5) DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBILITY.—A statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated by the presuit screening process is not discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by the opposing party. All participants, including, but not limited to, physicians, investigators, witnesses, and employees or associates of the defendant, are immune from civil liability arising from participation in the presuit screening process. This subsection does not prevent a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 or a dentist licensed under chapter 466 who submits a verified written expert medical opinion from being subject to denial of a license or disciplinary action under s. 458.331(1)(oo), s. 459.015(1)(qq), or s. 466.028(1)(ll).

(6) INFORMAL DISCOVERY.—

(a) Upon receipt by a prospective defendant of a notice of claim, the parties shall make discoverable information available without formal discovery. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal of claims or defenses ultimately asserted.

(b) Informal discovery may be used by a party to obtain unsworn statements, the production of documents or things, and physical and mental examinations, as follows:

1. Unsworn statements.—Any party may require other parties to appear for the taking of an unsworn statement. Such statements may be used only for the purpose of presuit screening and are not discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by any party. A party desiring to take the unsworn statement of any party must give reasonable notice in writing to all parties. The notice must state the time and place for taking the statement and the name and address of the party to be examined. Unless otherwise impractical, the examination of any party must be done at the same time by all other parties. Any party may be represented by counsel at the taking of an unsworn statement. An unsworn statement may be recorded electronically, stenographically, or on videotape. The taking of unsworn statements is subject to the provisions of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and may be terminated for abuses.

2. Documents or things.—Any party may request discovery of documents or things. The documents or things must be produced, at the expense of the requesting party, within 20 days after the date of receipt of the request. A party is required to produce discoverable documents or things within that party’s possession or control. Medical records shall be produced as provided in s. 766.204.

3. Physical and mental examinations.—A prospective defendant may require an injured claimant to appear for examination by an appropriate health care provider. The prospective defendant shall give reasonable notice in writing to all parties as to the time and place for examination. Unless otherwise impractical, a claimant is required to submit to only one examination on behalf of all potential defendants. The practicality of a single examination must be determined by the nature of the claimant’s condition, as it relates to the liability of each prospective defendant. Such examination report is available to the parties and their attorneys upon payment of the reasonable cost of reproduction and may be used only for the purpose of presuit screening. Otherwise, such examination report is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.

4. Written questions.—Any party may request answers to written questions, the number of which may not exceed 30, including subparts. A response must be made within 20 days after receipt of the questions.

5. Interviews of treating health care providers.—A prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may interview the claimant’s treating health care providers consistent with the authorization for release of protected health information. This subparagraph does not require a claimant’s treating health care provider to submit to a request for an interview. Notice of the intent to conduct an interview shall be provided to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative, who shall be responsible for arranging a mutually convenient date, time, and location for the interview within 15 days after the request is made. For subsequent interviews, the prospective defendant or his or her representative shall notify the claimant and his or her legal representative at least 72 hours before the subsequent interview. If the claimant’s attorney fails to schedule an interview, the prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may attempt to conduct an interview without further notice to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative.

6. Unsworn statements of treating health care providers.—A prospective defendant or his or her legal representative may also take unsworn statements of the claimant’s treating health care providers. The statements must be limited to those areas that are potentially relevant to the claim of personal injury or wrongful death. Subject to the procedural requirements of subparagraph 1., a prospective defendant may take unsworn statements from a claimant’s treating physicians. Reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard must be given to the claimant or the claimant’s legal representative before taking unsworn statements. The claimant or claimant’s legal representative has the right to attend the taking of such unsworn statements.

(c) Each request for and notice concerning informal presuit discovery pursuant to this section must be in writing, and a copy thereof must be sent to all parties. Such a request or notice must bear a certificate of service identifying the name and address of the person to whom the request or notice is served, the date of the request or notice, and the manner of service thereof.

(d) Copies of any documents produced in response to the request of any party must be served upon all other parties. The party serving the documents or his or her attorney shall identify, in a notice accompanying the documents, the name and address of the parties to whom the documents were served, the date of service, the manner of service, and the identity of the document served.

(7) SANCTIONS.—Failure to cooperate on the part of any party during the presuit investigation may be grounds to strike any claim made, or defense raised, by such party in suit.

History.—s. 14, ch. 85-175; s. 9, ch. 86-287; s. 3, ch. 88-173; s. 48, ch. 88-277; s. 245, ch. 94-218; s. 1, ch. 94-258; s. 424, ch. 96-406; s. 1800, ch. 97-102; s. 164, ch. 98-166; s. 225, ch. 2000-160; s. 166, ch. 2000-318; s. 1, ch. 2000-341; s. 49, ch. 2003-416; s. 11, ch. 2011-233; s. 3, ch. 2013-108; s. 17, ch. 2022-190.

Note.—Former s. 768.57.

F.S. 766.106 on Google Scholar

F.S. 766.106 on Casetext

Amendments to 766.106

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 766.106

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 766.106.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

D. RIGGENBACH, M. D. v. A. RHODES,, 267 So. 3d 551 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Rhodes served Petitioners with a presuit notice of intent to initiate . . .

P. SEIDER, A. P. A. a v. LEIBNER,, 266 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . failed to comply with the presuit requirements for bringing a medical malpractice action under section 766.106 . . . to eliminate the medical malpractice allegations or comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . .

HARPER, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 272 So. 3d 448 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See, e.g., § 766.106(2)(a), (3)(a), Fla. . . .

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

. . . compliance with the statutory pre-suit notice and investigation requirements of sections 766.104(1) and 766.106 . . .

SIMMONS, v. JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,, 253 So. 3d 59 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Hospital is a claim for medical malpractice that requires compliance with the notice provision of section 766.106 . . . was required because Simmons did not provide Hospital with the pre-suit notice required by section 766.106 . . . alleged damages arose "out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106 . . . when the claim arises out of the "rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106 . . . See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). See § 766.102, Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

RODRIGUEZ v. NICOLITZ, M. D. M. D., 246 So. 3d 550 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

NATIONAL DEAF ACADEMY, LLC, v. TOWNES,, 242 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . statutory scheme, as well as a shorter statute of limitations than for ordinary negligence claims. § 766.106 . . . as "a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services." § 766.106 . . . malpractice as a claim arising out of the rendering of, or failure to render, "medical care or services." § 766.106 . . .

WEAVER, v. C. MYERS, M. D., 229 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 2017)

. . . This case involves a Florida constitutional challenge to the 2013 amendments to sections 766.106 and . . . See § 766.106(6)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . .” § 766.106(5), Fla. Stat. . . . .” § 766.106(6)(a), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 766.106(6)(b)5., Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Weaver, 170 So.3d at 882. tThe district court also observed that the predecessor statute to section 766.106 . . . Rule 1.650 specifically addresses section 766.106, Florida Statutes, and the medical malpractice presuit . . .

VANCE, v. OKALOOSA- WALTON UROLOGY, P. A. a D. M. D. D. M. D., 228 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . (citations omitted); see also § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. . . .

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO., 228 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 2017)

. . . surviving parents and children, but are not applicable to claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106 . . .

MARTIN, v. SOWERS, M. D., 231 So. 3d 559 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . limitations and serving medical,malpractice pre-suit notices as required under Florida Statute Section 766.106 . . .

J. WILLIAMS, v. A. YOUNG,, 695 F. App'x 503 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 766.106—is undisputed. . . .

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

. . . notice of intent to initiate litigation shall be served within [the statute of limitations]”); section 766.106 . . .

ST. JOSEPH S HOSPITAL, INC. v. DOE,, 208 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . “medical negligence” as “medical malpractice, whether grounded in tort or in contract,” and section 766.106 . . .

HERNANDEZ, M. D. v. CRESPO,, 211 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 2016)

. . . pre-suit screening period and provided there is no mutual agreement to arbitrate under Florida Statutes, 766.106 . . . the parties” in all aspects except that if there is no mutual agreement to arbitrate under sections 766.106 . . . under the statutes would have to secure the “mutual agreement to arbitrate under Florida Statutes, 766.106 . . . negligence claim intact, the parties may elect to have damages determined by an arbitration panel"); § 766.106 . . .

MARK E. POMPER, M. D. P. A. a d b a v. FERRARO, 206 So.3d 728 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . failure to comply with the presuit requirements for medical malpractice actions contained within section 766.106 . . . moved to dismiss, asserting Respondents’ failure to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . . Appellate Analysis Section 766.106 establishes the pre-suit notice requirements for complaints alleging . . . Section 766.106(l)(a) defines a claim for medical negligence or medical malpractice as “a claim, arising . . . supreme court interpreted section 768,57, Florida Statutes, which was renumbered in 1988 as section 766.106 . . .

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

. . . After filing their notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice, see § 766.106(2), . . .

TOWNES, v. NATIONAL DEAF ACADEMY, LLC,, 197 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . 'Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2008), “imposes presuit requirements on a claim for medical negligence . . .

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, v. QUORUM MANAGEMENT CORP. a k a J. a s o s s, 186 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 766.106) apply to pharmacies and pharmacists. . . .

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

. . . She relies on section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2013), to argue that because she served her notice . . . Section 766.106(4) provides that during the ninety days following service of a notice of intent, the . . . Becker, 627 So.2d 481, 483 (Fla.1993) (analyzing both sections 766.106(3) and 766.106(4), Florida Statutes . . . See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . . See § 766.106(3)(a). And there is no indication that such a result was intended. . . .

R. SAMIIAN, M. D. v. FIRST PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. M. M. D. P. A., 180 So. 3d 190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . On behalf of his widow, his children and the estate, pursuant to section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes . . . entailed admitting liability, without making the offer “contingent upon a limit of general damages.” § 766.106 . . . ROWE and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur. .Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2003), provides in part: (3) PRESUIT . . . the permission of the insured, any offer of admission of liability and for arbitration pursuant to s. 766.106 . . . exclusive right to veto any offer for admission of liability and for arbitration made pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .

DOE, v. BAPTIST PRIMARY CARE, INC., 177 So. 3d 669 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims, as dictated by sections 95.11(4)(b) and 766.106 . . . As regards the application of the statute of limitations in sections 95.11(4)(b) and 766.106(4), the . . . As for the applicability of chapter 766, the supreme court read section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes . . . the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.’ ” Id. at 949 (citing section 766.106 . . .

SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC. d b a v. ESTATE OF ASHLEY LAWSON, LAWSON,, 175 So. 3d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . giving to a patient in a locked psychiatric unit, the complaint alleges medical negligence under section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106(1)(a) defines a “ ‘[c]laim for medical negligence’ or ‘claim for medical malpractice’ . . . Despite the Estate’s disavowals of medical negligence, we agree with Shands because under § 766.106(l . . . Estate’s claim arises out of the medical care, treatment, and services provided to her for purposes of § 766.106 . . . Id. at 177; see § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. . . .

WEAVER, E. v. C. MYERS, M. D. LLC d b a d b a a k a d b a, 170 So. 3d 873 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . 2013 amendments to the medical malpractice presuit notice sections of the Florida Statutes:' sections 766.106 . . . when conducting this presuit informal investigation, including the taking of unsworn statements. § 766.106 . . . (codified at § 766.106(b)(5), Fla. Stat. (2013)); Ch. 2013-108 § 4, Laws of Fla. . . . The rule also appears to mirror section 766.106(6), Florida Statutes, as it was amended three months . . . See § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. . . . .” § 766.106(6)(b)(5), Fla. Stat. . . .

CUEVAS, v. TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY f k a, 173 So. 3d 986 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . period of 75 days after [presuit] notice is mailed to any prospective defendant”); 429.293(3)(a) (same); 766.106 . . .

CURTIS v. TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE CO., 154 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 766.106(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). The neutral evaluation statute contains no such prohibition. . . .

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

. . . Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation served on those Defendants/Appellees was timely under Section 766.106 . . . the statutory provisions which are at the crux of the issue in this appeal: Florida Statutes Section 766.106 . . . Simply, the issue in this appeal is: does the Section 766.106(3)(a) 90-day tolling of the statute of . . . For the reasons stated below, we find that in this factual scenario, the Section 766.106(3)(a) 90-day . . . We acknowledge that subsections 766.106(4) and 766.106(2) use different terminology, one uses “prospective . . .

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. DUMIGAN, 151 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . (citing § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat.). . . .

NIEVES, M. D. v. VIERA,, 150 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Nieves a notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice action against him pursuant to section 766.106 . . .

BYRNES v. SMALL, USA,, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . limitations period and timely filed her Complaint within the tolling period provided under Florida Statutes § 766.106 . . . Stat. § 766.106(4) (“The notice of intent to initiate litigation shall be served within the time limits . . . Stat. § 766.106(4). . . .

MURPHY, v. C. DULAY, C. M. D. P. A., 768 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 766.106(3)(a). . . . Id. § 766.106(3)(a). . . . Id. § 766.106(3)(b). . . . Id. § 766.106(3)(d). . . . Id. § 766.106(4). . . .

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

. . . Section 766.106(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), defines a “[cjlaim for medical negligence” or “claim . . .

BUCK, v. COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF SOUTH BROWARD, d b a a, 147 So. 3d 604 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Section 766.106 defines a “ ‘[c]laim for medical negligence’ or ‘claim for medical malpractice’ [as] . . . a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . .

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

. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Section 766.106(2)(a) provides in part that "[a]fter completion of presuit investigation pursuant to . . .

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 . . .

MURPHY, v. C. DULAY, M. D. C. M. D. P. A., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (N.D. Fla. 2013)

. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. . . . Id. § 766.106(2). The presuit-notice requirement has long been in force and is plainly valid. Mr. . . .

EDWARDS, v. SUNRISE OPHTHALMOLOGY ASC, LLC, d b a A. M. D., 134 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . The ophthalmologist subsequently filed an Answer, asserting noncompliance with sections 766.102, 766.106 . . . Answer asserted the plaintiff “failed to comply with the spirit or law embodied by Florida Statute 766.106 . . . certified mail, return receipt requested, of intent to initiate litigation for medical negligence.” § 766.106 . . . .” § 766.106(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

ACOSTA, v. HEALTHSPRING OF FLORIDA, INC., 118 So. 3d 246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Acostas’ claims against HealthSpring were not “claims for medical malpractice” as defined in section 766.106 . . .

FRANKS, v. BOWERS, M. D., 116 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 2013)

. . . . § 766.106(3)(a). . . . made to each claimant who has joined in the notice of intent to initiate litigation, as provided in s.766.106 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASE- REPORT NO., 130 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 2013)

. . . surviving parents and children, but are not applicable to claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106 . . .

LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a v. PILGRIM, a, 107 So. 3d 505 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . . As used in section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2010), a " ‘[c]laim for medical negligence’ or 'claim for . . . means a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . .

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

. . . claim under section 400.022 ... is not required to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . . Nothing in section 766.106 compels this court to read that statute in an expansive manner to include . . .

OMNI HEALTHCARE, INC. v. MOSER, M. D. v., 106 So. 3d 474 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . in the trial court based on Respondent’s failure to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . .

C. RELL, D. P. M. P. A. v. McCULLA, 101 So. 3d 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .— Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .

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)

. . . because the Pollocks’ counsel failed to comply with the presuit requirements of sections 766.104 and 766.106 . . .

KING, v. BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC. d b a s, 87 So. 3d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . We conclude that section 766.106, Florida Statute’s (2003), notice of intent to initiate litigation sent . . . In May 2008, King sent by certified mail two formal notices pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes . . . that she complied with all the conditions precedent to the filing of the action as required in section 766.106 . . . Hospital then moved to dismiss the amended complaint because it had not been directly served a section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2003) provides, in pertinent part: (2) Presuit notice.— (a) After . . .

BERRY D. v. PADDEN, M. D., 84 So. 3d 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .— Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .

WADDINGTON, v. BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER OF BEACHES, INC. a, 78 So. 3d 114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes Does Not Prohibit Plaintiff From Using the Expert Affidavit of its . . . Section 766.106(5), Florida Statutes Does Not Prohibit Plaintiff From Using the Expert Affidavit of its . . .

PALMS WEST HOSPITAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a d b a f k a a d b a v. H. BURNS,, 83 So. 3d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009); see also J.B. v. . . .

BERY, v. FAHEL, D. O., 88 So. 3d 236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . . § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). Shortly after Dr. . . . Fahel had to respond to the plaintiffs’ notice of intent to initiate litigation, see § 766.106(3), .203 . . .

JOSEPH, v. UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL LLC,, 71 So. 3d 913 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . comply with the conditions precedent prior to the filing of this action pursuant to Florida Statutes § 766.106 . . . Section 766.106 imposes presuit requirements on a claim for medical negligence or malpractice. . . . Snyder, 899 So.2d 336, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . . the affirmative defense that the patient failed to comply with the presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . .

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

. . . See §§ 766.106(2), (4), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See §§ 766.106(3) & (4), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 766.106(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . .” § 766.106(4), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 766.106(4), Fla. . . .

WILLIAMS, v. OKEN, M. D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)

. . . DCA 2008) (granting certiorari where trial court incorrectly found that presuit notice under section 766.106 . . . Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), filing the notice had the effect of tolling . . .

FRANKS, Sr. v. BOWERS, M. D. M. III, M. D. P. A. a, 62 So. 3d 16 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See §§ 766.106(3)(b)(3); 766.207(2); 766.207(7); 766.118(2), Fla. Stat. . . .

GALENCARE, INC. d b a A. G. n k a S. E. HCA, v. MOSLEY,, 59 So. 3d 138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . The presuit notice requirement is set forth in section 766.106. . . . .” § 766.106(2)(a). . . . “[T]he proper test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to notice under section 766.106(2) . . . See § 766.106(l)(a) (“ ‘Claim for medical negligence’ or ‘claim for medical malpractice’ means a claim . . . See § 766.106(l)(a). . . .

HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. WIRTH, 49 So. 3d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 766.106(2)(a). . . .

M. D. a v. UNITED STATES, 745 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . . § 766.106, and requires mediation for malpractice cases, id. § 766.108(1). . . .

INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. BROWNE,, 44 So. 3d 237 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2009). As we explained in Mobley v. Gilbert E. . . . Hirschberg, P.A., 915 So.2d 217, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005): Section 766.106 imposes presuit requirements . . . Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola, 635 So.2d 945, 949 (Fla.1994)); § 766.106(1)(a), Fla. . . . petition for writ of certio-rari, holding that the complaint is one of “medical negligence” under section 766.106 . . .

OLIVEROS, v. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEMS SUNBELT, INC. d b a d b a Dr. D. Dr. LLC., 45 So. 3d 873 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 766.106(4). Therefore, the statute of limitations expired in September 2007. . Dr. . . .

L. GORDON, M. D. v. SHIELD, 41 So. 3d 931 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Gordon and Strax a notice of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice, pursuant to section 766.106 . . . 2008, Gordon and Strax requested from Shield information relating to her claim pursuant to section 766.106 . . . must notify the prospective defendants of her intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice. § 766.106 . . . ; however, both parties “shall make discoverable information available without formal discovery.” § 766.106 . . .

HOLDEN, v. BOBER, M. D. Gu, M. D. W. M. D. P. A. d b a d b a, 39 So. 3d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Gu a notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice action against him pursuant to sections 766.106 . . . to notify each prospective defendant of his or her intent to initiate a medical negligence action. § 766.106 . . . See § 766.106(4). . . . .

B. DIRGA, v. A. BUTLER, M. D., 39 So. 3d 388 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . As explained by the supreme court, “[s]ection 766.106(2) does not define the ‘prospective defendants’ . . .

SOUTH MIAMI HOSPITAL, INC. v. M. PEREZ L., 38 So. 3d 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . requirements of chapter 766, Florida Statutes (2008), which include presuit notice as set forth in section 766.106 . . . See §§ 766.106, .203 (Fla.Stat.2008). . . . Section 766.106, for example, sets forth the requirements of presuit notice and presuit investigation . . . as] a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . .

SAHYERS, v. PRUGH, HOLLIDAY KARATINOS, P. L. a F. W. II, E., 603 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 766.106(2)(a) (providing that “prior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall . . .

GUTMAN, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., 707 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2010)

. . . Stat. § 766.106. . . . Stat. § 766.106(l)-(3). . . . Stat. § 766.106. See Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. v. . . . Stat. § 766.106). . . . Stat. § 766.106. . . .

JEFFREY A. HUNT, D. O. P. A. d b a v. HUPPMAN,, 28 So. 3d 989 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Pri- or to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .

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). . . . surviving parents and children, but are not applicable to claims for medical malpractice as defined by F.S. 766.106 . . .

VARIETY CHILDREN S HOSPITAL d b a s v. BOICE, 27 So. 3d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Pursuant to section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2007), the Boices served a notice of intent on the child . . . legislature distinguished between informal and formal discovery in a medical malpractice action, see § 766.106 . . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . .

DR. NAVARRO S VEIN CENTRE OF PALM BEACH, INC. M. D. v. MILLER,, 22 So. 3d 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . plaintiffs complaint for non-compliance with the medical malpractice presuit requirements of section 766.106 . . . as “a claim, arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” § 766.106 . . . dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint for failure to comply with the presuit screening process of section 766.106 . . .

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, v. TURKIEWICZ,, 21 So. 3d 141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . For example, a claim that a party did not comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106(2) . . .

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

. . . . § 766.106(2). . . .

OKEN, M. D. a v. WILLIAMS,, 23 So. 3d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . These cases involve whether or not the statute of limitations was tolled under chapter 766.106(4), a . . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

RAPHAEL, v. SHECTER,, 18 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 766.106(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2002). . . . .

E. ABBEY, D. O. v. PATRICK D. O., 16 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . According to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), the notice had the effect of tolling the time . . . Section 766.106(4) also provides that, if the defendant serves a notice of intent to terminate the negotiations . . . However, the trial judge evidently concluded that, because section 766.106(4) has the effect of “tolling . . .

C. SCHERER, DPM, C. DPM, P. A. v. RIGSBY,, 24 So. 3d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . plaintiff in this medical malpractice action did not comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . .

T. CHASTEEN, v. UNITED STATES, 334 F. App'x 271 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 766.106(2)(a). Dr. . . .

NOBLES, In v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,, 327 F. App'x 838 (11th Cir. 2009)

. . . The court found that Plaintiff had not complied with the statutory requirements of §§ 766.106 and 766.203 . . .

WOOD, CRNA, v. A. VIRGO O. S. a O. a O. Jr. a M. D. s L. L. P. d b a CRNA M. D. P. A., 3 So. 3d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650(b)(3), which is applicable to the procedures prescribed by section 766.106 . . . suggesting that the issue of the Virgos’ compliance with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . . Virgo (the Virgos), had failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of section 766.106(2)( . . .

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)

. . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

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

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

GONZALEZ, v. F. TRACY, D. P. M., 994 So. 2d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Pursuant to section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (2006), the statute of limitations is tolled during . . .

TENET SOUTH FLORIDA HEALTH SYSTEMS d b a v. B. JACKSON,, 991 So. 2d 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Complaint constitute medical negligence by hospital personnel, that, therefore, pursuant to section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106(l)(a) defines a claim for medical malpractice as “a claim, arising out of the rendering . . . required to comply with the presuit notice and 90-day investigatory period as set forth in sections 766.106 . . . (2) and 766.106(3), Florida Statutes (2007), see Integrated Health Care Servs., Inc. v. . . . As such, the trial judge was incorrect in finding that presuit notice, under section 766.106(2), Florida . . .

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

. . . Porumbescus that the trial court failed to account for the ninety-day tolling period under section 766.106 . . . 766.106(4), which creates a tolling period following a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice . . . See § 766.106(3) Fla. Stat. (1999). . . . Section 766.106(4) provides: [DJuring the 90-day period, the statute of limitations is tolled as to all . . . By adding this additional 90-day period to the deadline from section 766.106(4), their complaint falls . . .

STUBBS, v. PLANTATION GENERAL HOSPITAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a d b a a a, 988 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 766.106, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

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

. . . certificate of counsel, failed to send a notice of intent to initiate litigation as required by section 766.106 . . . her response, Johnson conceded that she had not complied with the pre-suit requirements of sections 766.106 . . .

LEON MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. d b a a Dr. F. M. D. F. M. D. P. A. v. MARTELL,, 972 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . See id. § 766.106(3)(b)3. The plaintiff sought clarification on a point not material here. . . . The plaintiff begins with the observation that the defendants’ offer was made under subparagraph 766.106 . . .

FREEMAN, M. D. M. D. v. COHEN, 969 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . the permission of the insured, any offer of admission of liability and for arbitration pursuant to s. 766.106 . . . exclusive right to veto any offer for admission of liability and for arbitration made pursuant to s. 766.106 . . . He alleged violations of both the presuit investigation procedure pursuant to section 766.106 and violation . . .

LIFESOUTH COMMUNITY BLOOD CENTERS, INC. v. FITCHNER, v. a, 970 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . motion to dismiss for appellee’s failure to comply with the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . . screening of blood donors by a blood bank be subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 766.106 . . . Section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, provides that, prior to filing a suit for medical negligence, a . . . 766 from “medical malpractice” to “medical negligence,” most notably in the amendments to subsections 766.106 . . . (1) and (2), Florida Statutes. 766.106. . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 966 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2007)

. . . abuses shall be evidence of failure of that party to comply with the good faith requirements of section 766.106 . . . but shall be evidence of failure of that party to comply with the good faith requirements of section 766.106 . . .

G. ROGERS, M. D. v. CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY,, 964 So. 2d 280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . claimed that his insurance company failed to undertake the necessary investigation pursuant to section 766.106 . . . The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that neither section 766.106 nor section 627.4147, upon . . . Pursuant to section 766.106, Chicago had 90 days to conduct a presuit investigation of the claim. . . . He alleged violations of both the presuit investigation procedure pursuant to section 766.106 and violation . . . exclusive right to veto any offer for admission of liability and for arbitration made pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .

ROBINSON, v. Dr. SCOTT,, 974 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . medical malpractice complaint for failure to comply with the presuit discovery requirements of Section 766.106 . . . See § 766.106(3)(a). . . . See § 766.106(6)(a). . . . Additionally, section 766.106(7), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that “[f]ailure to cooperate on the . . . See § 766.106(3)(b). III. . . .

J. CORBO, P. A. v. GARCIA,, 949 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . .” § 766.106(l)(a); see J.B. v. Sacred Heart Hosp. of Pensacola, 635 So.2d 945, 949 (Fla.1994). . . . determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . . Garcia’s claim thus arose “out of the rendering of ... medical care or services.” § 766.106(l)(a). . . .

SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA, INC. v. E. ASHE,, 948 So. 2d 889 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 766.106(2), Fla. . . .

ECHEVARRIA, McCALLA, RAYMER, BARRETT FRAPPIER, v. COLE,, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007)

. . . For example, section 766.106, Florida Statutes (2006), requires a medical malpractice claimant to notify . . .

WHITE, a v. TEQUESTA HMA, INC. d b a a, 945 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . demonstrate that the causes of action alleged fall outside of the presuit screening requirements of section 766.106 . . .

LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. a v. Q. ALLEN, F., 944 So. 2d 541 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . § 766.106(l)(a). . . . . § 766.106(2). . . . Our analysis is entirely consistent with the medical malpractice definition provided in section 766.106 . . .

MIRZA, M. D. v. TROMBLEY, 946 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . granted because respondents did not individually serve him with a notice of intent pursuant to section 766.106 . . . Therefore, by noticing ECHIS, plaintiffs met the presuit notice requirement of section 766.106(2), Florida . . . When responding to initial requests for informal discovery pursuant to section 766.106 after the corroborating . . .

ARCH PLAZA, INC. v. PERPALL,, 947 So. 2d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The medical malpractice pre-suit notice requirement, found in section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (2004 . . . This rule applies only to the procedures prescribed by section 766.106, Florida Statutes, for presuit . . . Both sections 400.0233(2) and 766.106(2), Florida Statutes, are worded substantially the same. . . . Section 766.106(2) states that: [PJrior to filing a complaint for medical negligence, a claimant shall . . . Because both section 400.0233(2), the nursing home pre-suit notice provision, and section 766.106(2), . . .

QUINTANILLA, v. CORAL GABLES HOSPITAL, INC., 941 So. 2d 468 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . affirmative defense, alleged that Quintanilla failed to comply with the pre-suit requirements under section 766.106 . . . Therefore, Quintanilla was required to comply with the pre-suit requirements of section 766.106, had . . . Section 766.106(l)(a), defines a claim for medical negligence or medical malpractice as “a claim arising . . . for his cough, the actual act of serving the hot tea amounts to a medical service pursuant to section 766.106 . . . medical malpractice, but a claim for simple negligence that does not require compliance with section 766.106 . . .

ANDERSON, v. B. WAGNER, DPM,, 955 So. 2d 586 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . — Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation pursuant to s. 766.106 . . .